Change starts with good questions [Part 2]
In the first post of this two-part series, we laid the arguments about why questions are the best route to change. In a nutshell, we asserted that asking questions provides the most natural opportunity for individuals to encounter an imperative to change. An open discussion prompted by good questions breeds curiosity even in those that are reluctant to ask questions themselves. The practice of asking good questions is like turning on a searchlight, and it's why we incorporate potent questions in the heart of our equity-focused strategic consulting and training work. However, not all questions are created equal, and in this piece, we explore the anatomy of good questions and how to start asking them effectively.
In the first post about questions, we told you about a female participant at a recent Equity Sequence™️ training who expressed concern that she would offend her colleague if she were to question the equitable design of a product, given her colleague had built it. We had to explain to her why the right question would do no such thing, but, instead, could empower her, her colleague and their team to instigate change.
We have both seen first hand, just how powerful asking questions can be...
[Anna] Curious questions have always been the bedrock of my strategy design and development process. During the first 15 years of my career, before we launched Tidal Equality, I learned and led strategy and strategic policy development working in-house in strategic advisory and leadership roles in large social systems like health, welfare, the charitable sector, and more. Sometimes, those I engaged wanted me to walk in the door with answers (so we can just get change done). As many strategists will tell you, though, to develop a great strategy, you need to find ways to look at your organization with an outsider’s lens. Because with an outsider’s lens, it’s much easier to define and ask the important questions about and of the status quo.
You have to get comfortable asking questions, like “why do we do this?” “what’s the big problem here?” “who do we serve?” “how well are we serving them?” and more. These big (but simple) questions can be hard to ask. Sometimes they irk people in leadership and those who protect people in leadership and the status quo, especially if they stewarded the strategies and practices that currently exist...for example, if you’re a long tenured member of a team, if you helped to develop the previous strategy, etc. But these questions are also wildly empowering to those who want to breathe new life and impact into their work. If you can give yourself permission to keep asking the big questions - if you can practice asking constructive, future-focused questions - you can think of these questions as being part of your stewardship responsibility for your organization and its work, you will undoubtedly become more valuable to your organization as you will help to set it on its right path.
These big (and simple) questions help me develop the right strategy, at the right time, for an organization or system that is on the brink of change. Asking big questions helps me identify when an organization is working the wrong strategy, to figure out what’s wrong about it, and even to better understand what’s broken operationally.
In big social systems (like the health system), and in charities, non-profits, and corporations large and small, we can learn so much from asking big questions of the people who we serve and the people who are doing the day to day work. These stakeholders, constituents, clients, staff etc. can provide us with rich insights about what’s working and what’s broken, and the direction the organization needs to travel in next...but only if you start your strategy development process with questions (not expertise and answers). Big (simple) questions hold so much more power to make real and impactful change. When we can ask these questions of frontline staff, stakeholders, leaders alike...when we can give more people voice, and ultimately we can find resonant and unchartered ways to redesign the impact and purpose of your organization for the better. We can develop better strategy and informed context-rich, solutions.
[Kristen] Anna and I arrived at our questioning methodologies in very different ways. In my first career, I taught junior-high and high-school students who often cared very little about the content they were expected to learn. I quickly understood that if I wanted them to become curious people who would go on to pursue learning on their own accord, instead of for the sake of a standardized assessment, they had to be allowed to question what was going on. It became critical to my teaching practice to put in place the mechanisms for my students to consistently have their “a-ha” moment, which embedded thinking and learning processes in their own lives and practices.
In the early 2000s, I was teaching an English course. I had instituted a practice of inviting students to share current events, and one day, a student came to class with a news clipping about the genocide in Darfur. She had questions about what was happening, and as I observed the reactions of her classmates to the atrocity, I saw an opportunity to engage them through questioning. Together, we started asking questions like: Where is Darfur? Who lives there? What’s their history? Who has power? Who doesn’t have power? Who’s helping and who isn’t? Why? As we asked questions, it became imperative to talk about the fundamentals of war, violence and crimes against humanity, not because I thought these were things my students should know, but because they wanted to work toward finding the answers to their questions. It wasn't long before I had found myself with a group of 12-year-old activists carrying pro-peace signs marching through the streets of Edmonton demanding world leaders do something about the genocide. That didn't happen because I told them they should be active citizens; instead, it was because I nurtured their curiosity by asking the right questions.
….
A group taking part in an Equity Sequence™
At Tidal Equality, we understand the power of a good question, but we’ve also come to understand what distinguishes a good question - that can instigate change - from a bad question - that can alienate and only strengthens the status quo.
Our vision at Tidal Equality is to support our clients and readers alike in creating a world in which equality is the new status quo.
So towards our vision, we developed a unique set of questions that we call the Equity Sequence. The Sequence is made up of five simple questions any of us can use to ask of our decisions, designs, our policies, our processes, etc, to collectively uncover the bias that exists in our work, so we can transform to create greater equality and impact.
What is a good question in the context of equity, diversity, and inclusion?
The most important thing to understand is that a good question in this context is one that focused primarily on the future … It's a question that empowers people to uncover bias in what is so that they can design a better future for all. It’s about asking...how can we design “this” (strategy, plan, product, policy, etc) to reduce inequality/bias / etc. It is not a question that’s designed on identifying who to blame.
In the context of creating the right strategy to expand equity, good questions look for objective and unbiased facts; they do not slice and dice people according to their dimensions of diversity or record of decision making. They ask, how can we make this more equitable?
If we want to design more equitable organizations, institutions, communities etc. we need to learn how to ask great questions about how we might expand equity through “this” (whether this is a decision, a policy, a product, etc). We need to learn to ask future-focused questions...with a view to course-correcting the wrongs of the past.
For example, the following question centers on the design of a thing - an event - and it triggers intention-setting (a powerful force for action), and invites those involved to focus on a common cause and work together toward achieving it.
(Context: a volunteer committee has been assembled to design a client appreciation event for their professional services firm. The committee is composed of staff who don’t frequently work together, but who need to collaborate to design an event that will accommodate the firm’s diverse clientele.)
Will we commit to designing our client appreciation event with equity in mind?
When a group of people can answer “yes” to this unthreatening question, it then opens the door to explore further questions around how that commitment can be enacted and demonstrated. In other words, by answering “yes”, the team now has reason to explore considerations related to accessibility, timing, food and drink provisions, and might extend so far as to examine ways to advance equity through the choice of catering and venue, as these factors relate to the pursuit of equity on behalf of their clientele and beyond. It doesn’t mean that perfection will be achieved, it doesn’t mean that mistakes can’t and won’t be made. It is a launching-off point, a question that at very least puts questions of equity on the table during a process that might otherwise not involve equity considerations.
How we frame a question matters
If we are not careful, questions can give away cues and predispose respondents to give us a certain type of response.
When researchers from the University of Pennsylvania were looking into what types of questions are most likely to yield an accurate response, they discovered that the framing of a question can suggest to a respondent what type of information the questioner assumes they will receive, as well as what information the questioner has already. These assumptive questions can be “positive assuming” or “negative assuming.” (Questions that don’t imply an assumption are “general.”) While each question may intend to retrieve the same information, the respondent will make different assumptions about the asker depending on how they framed the question. Ultimately, it will affect the integrity of their responses.
Here is how the three work:
"The neighbours are quiet, right?" is a positive assumption question. Respondents may infer that the questioner has some relevant information, but is unlikely to pursue an assertive line of questioning.
"How noisy are the neighbours?" is a negative assumption question. Respondents may infer that the questioner both has relevant information and is likely to pursue an assertive line of questioning.
"How are the neighbours?" is a general question. Respondents are unlikely to infer from general questions that the questioner either has relevant information or is likely to pursue an assertive line of inquiry.
Negative assumption questions are most likely to elicit truthful disclosure about an underlying problem related to noisy neighbours, while both negative and positive assumption questions are likely to obtain greater information disclosure than general questions. In other words, if it is known that the neighbours are noisy, and the questioner is looking for qualifying information, the negative assumption question will serve that purpose.
In our work, when we are coaching an individual or a team to work toward de-biasing elements of a process, product, system, etc., one of the questions we arrive at asking them is, How can this be efficiently and effectively transformed to reduce bias, discrimination, and inequity? This question is a positive assumption question. We assume there exists an opportunity to reduce bias, and what they’re endeavoring to do (through the process of asking other, carefully designed questions), is to discover those opportunities.
Good questions are 100% accessible, objective and inclusive
Contrary to popular belief, a good question in an equality context is not one that requires prior knowledge in the terminology of diversity and inclusion. It certainly shouldn’t require a Masters's degree in feminist or gender studies to understand it, and shouldn’t require a corresponding thesis to answer it. When you’re trying to equip folks of all kinds - in any role, organization, or any age, background, etc. - to participate in the creation of greater equity and the interruption of bias in the systems around them, you need to scaffold the question to the work they’re doing already. If folks feel they can’t engage in the conversation because they aren’t experts on intersectionality, or privilege, or using the most current acronyms, you lose the ability to bring people together and equip them to be part of creating a solution - you tie their hands behind their back. If they’re an unabashed homophobe or openly misogynistic or voice strong anti-black opinions, sure, don’t feel the need to involve them in the process. But if they are people who care about making the world a more equal place and want to lend a hand in making it so, invite them into the process. It’s likely that they will pursue their own further education as they engage, and you can be there, ready to support them when they do.
Questions also shouldn't depend on the existing subjective value systems and beliefs of respondents. That is because what good equity-focused questions are aiming to uncover is information about the design of the product, policy, practice, event, content, etc. the organization has produced, not the opinions people hold of them.
Furthermore, when a question digs into the fact, not opinions, they become more inclusive and invite individuals to share whatever knowledge they have. Here are a few guidelines:
Ask simple questions that anyone at any rank can answer. Do not throw in jargon, abbreviations or any other form of an exclusionary language. People get the concept of discrimination, and if asked to look for it, can uncover it without any fancy language. Your questions need to empower them, not diminish them.
Inquire for the facts and avoid using subjective opinion verbs such as do you feel or do you think. Those would entail voicing an opinion, which is firstly very difficult for some people to do in front of others and secondly puts the vernacular in subjective rather than objective territory. You only want to uncover clear facts as only they instigate course-correction; this isn't the time for moral policing.
Phrase your questions carefully. Research into the psychology of questions reveals that the phrasing of questions can convey information that guides responses. (Consider a study that found respondents who were asked to estimate the speed of two cars in a video that "smashed" into each other provided higher estimates than participants who were asked to determine the speed of two vehicles that "bumped" into each other.)
Put only one inquiry in your question. For example, don't ask if a particular decision is fair for both men and women, as it will be different in each case. Double-barrel questions, as they are known, are not only far more difficult to answer, but the answer may be far more challenging to interpret. A double-barrel question looks like: How can we reduce barriers to access and increase voter participation at polling stations in urban centers? By simply splitting this question into two - How can we reduce barriers? How can we increase participation? - yields more focused responses.
Stick to open-ended questions. One of the fundamentals of survey design is to omit ambiguity and bias in questions. Closed-ended questions (vs open-ended questions) can introduce bias. In one study parents were asked to identify "the most important thing for children to prepare them in life," from a list of options. About 60% chose "to think for themselves.” However, when asked the same question, but given the opportunity to provide their own answer, only about 5% of parents came up with an answer along those lines. The same goes for inquiries related to equity. You want people to arrive at the truth rather than be influenced to believe something to be true. For example, if you are deploying a cultural inclusion survey, and you ask, “How would you describe the culture at our organization,” and then provide a series of answers such as “Inclusive,” “Supportive,” “Competitive,” “Exclusive,” “Meritocratic,” etc. you will find yourself with a neat-and-tidy quantitative data point along the lines of “75% of employees describe our culture as…” However, if you’re truly curious to understand how folks experience your organizational culture, you’ll only get under the hood if you invite them to share in their own words.
Ask What, When, Who, Where, Why and How questions. Known as the 5Ws and 1H questions, they are fundamental to information gathering and by their nature seek to uncover facts.
In our work, we help individuals and teams begin to uncover bias in systems and processes by asking them Who was this process designed by? Who was it designed for? Who was it designed with? Who was it designed without? This set of questions helps them reveal - through the process of asking - whether important stakeholders have not been consulted, whether there are groups or communities whose needs have not been considered, whether there individuals or perspectives that should inform the design, and if the burden of work is consistently falling on the same person or group of people?
Engineer questions for “A-ha!” moments
There is a natural tendency for questioners to have certain expectations when it comes to the answers they seek to receive. That is because we always have a specific hypothesis in mind. In fact, having a hypothesis is central to the scientific method. We have an inkling, then we go about experimenting or asking questions to see if that inkling is correct or not.
As a consultancy that fights to bring more equality in the workplace, our work is built upon several hypotheses, including the following: Inequality is at the root of all problems.
However, we do not allow this hypothesis to infiltrate our questions overtly. If we did, it’s unlikely we would be able to engage skeptics in our work, and engage and even equip skeptics, we do. We do not march into a company preaching about the bias and discrimination we believe is harbored there. It’s one of many reasons we do not subscribe to bias training being the antidote to inequality. Instead, we deploy the process of inquiry, and as their people ask the questions, the bias and inequality are revealed. In other words, they prove our hypothesis for us (so far, at least, *wink*). The build-up of objective information gathered through the questioning gives them evidence of the inequalities (and how they are affecting their culture and business objectives) as well as identified opportunities to expand that equality to the benefit of their people and their bottom line.
Come up with the right sequence of questions
A single question is unlikely to solicit the information you need to improve a product, process, system, policy, etc. in order to make it more equitable and inclusive, which is why it’s important to have a series of questions that are sequenced deliberately to gather the critical information you need.
The sequence should consist of linking questions, and start with a simple anchoring question that solicits a relatively simple answer that is most likely to establish consensus. This can create rapport and motivate participants to continue.
Do you remember the Equity Sequence™ participant from Part One of this series? She expressed concern that she would offend her colleague if she were to question the equitable design of a product, given she knew her colleague had a hand in building it.
We helped her understand that as long as her question wasn't focused on interrogating his intentions and motivations, and instead was part of a fact-finding mission where everyone involved had agreed to collaborate to improve the product, there wouldn't be anything offensive in her actions.
And so she asked, Was this product created with equity in mind? This anchoring question sets the fact-based tone in a non-threatening way that established a reason to carry on questioning, or not. In this case, according to the product design lead, the answer was “no.” This was just a fact. No judgment. No tsk-tsk-ing or sideways glances. There was now a reason to keep asking questions, ones we’ve worked very hard to design and sequence carefully in order to interrupt bias and increase equity. According to research, it is follow-up questions, rather than introductory questions ("How are you?"), mirror questions ("I'm fine. How are you?") or full-switch questions (ones that change the topic entirely) that create the most impactful conversation. That’s where the magic lives. That’s where you discover the opportunities to course-correct a product, design for greater inclusivity and equity - together.
…
Where can you start?
There’s certainly a lot to consider when you want to use good questions as a method for creating greater equality, so why not start where we do, and begin asking yourself and others the question: Was this designed with equity in mind? (“This” might be a product, a process, a meeting, an event, a piece of content, a marketing strategy, a purchase,...you name it!).
In our experience, more often than not, the answer is “No.” And for the transformative work we have in mind - and for the transformation that is required to create systemic change - that’s a great place to start. In the practice of asking, even just this one question, we can begin to see to what extent our decisions do not, presently, necessarily, center equity. But in the great many “Nos” that are, today, the answers to that question, lies the promise of a different tomorrow, one where we might find ourselves answering “Yes” more and more often.
If you want to find out how the Equity Sequence™ can help your organisation, get a briefing on current research on standard equity, diversity, and inclusion interventions, and have the opportunity to engage digitally with leaders and Changemakers working on shared challenges from across the continent sign up for our webinar on April 22nd.