“I wish I had an answer to that because I’m tired of answering that question.” – Yogi Berra
A few years ago in my essay “The Art of the Question”, I discussed effective inquiry, which I termed the ‘soul of communication’. Needless to say, questioning is useless without answers, so I will address that end of the communication equation now. Let’s revisit question types and see how the person being questioned can respond effectively. This essay primarily is about the spoken word but applies to written inquiry as well.
The Direct Question
The most traditional and obvious type of question is the direct one. As described in my previous essay, this type is based on logic, i. e. the head. It seeks targeted factual answers such as who, what, where, when, why, how, how much, or simply yes or no. For example:
“What is the time?”
Direct questions generally are devoid of ambiguity. The inquirer knows quite specifically what information he or she is seeking. You the respondent either know the time or you don’t. You answer with a fact about current time as you understand it or you indicate you don’t know.
Direct questions, because they individually are so specific, often are asked in series, each leading to the next, seeking to take the Q&A interaction in some direction. I have referred to this process in the past as funneling. The process may dig down, each step getting more specific to end at a root explanation (see my previous essay’s discussion of the Toyota Way of inquiry), or build up, each getting more general to end at an overall conclusion. In a jury trial for example, cross-examination is nothing but a series of direct questions that attempt to end in validating a point of logic for the prosecution or the defense.
Assuming the direct question is reasonable, you answer truthfully. But what if it is unreasonable, at least from your perspective? By that I mean, do YOU think it in your best interest to reply in a forthright, honest way to a particular inquiry or is there potential harm to anyone? If the question is from a friend or trusted teammate, with whom you are connected in a committed way, obviously you will answer to the best of your ability. But what about those you about whom you are uncertain, especially those who seem to be trying to trap you in some way, say a cagy journalist, a crafty salesperson, a work rival, or the odd stranger. Each may have a covert agenda at odds with your own needs and wants.
For example, a stranger stops you on a busy street and says, “Hi … you look lost. Are you from out of town?”
Now that may be just a friendly local trying to help a tourist. But it could be the beginning of a confidence game or worse. In my view, just to be safe, you should not answer at all (I usually nod no and keep walking) or at least be a little vague, “I’m fine, thanks.” (If you are indeed lost, ask a more obvious source of bona fide direction, such as a policeman or delivery worker. Sadly, you have to be careful; these are the times we live in.)
Consider other ‘gotcha’ questions, say put to you when you are in a more formal spokesperson role: For instance:
“Why do you oppose more government funds for poor kids?” -or-
“Do you favor gun control, yes or no?” -or-
“Are you a Republican or a Democrat?”
All three of these particular direct questions are unfair; each has a faulty premise. In the first instance, you may not have taken a position on the funding, (only allegedly ‘for poor kids’), for a variety of good reasons. In the second, you are being asked to give a simple answer about a complex subject, often not a good reply. In the third, the options are too limited. You may belong to neither party. In all three cases you can push back on the questioner, pointing out the flawed premise of each. A subtle push-back method is a turn. I mean first reply with your own question to reframe the subject like,
“To what specific programs are you referring?” -or-
“In which gun control measures are you most interested?” -or-
“Why doesn’t your question include more alternatives, such as belonging to other parties (green, libertarian, etc.) or being an independent voter?”
You can also respond to a valid, direct question by noting inherent limitations on your ability to answer. For example, if the subject is confidential, you can say you are not at liberty to answer. This is even more convincing if you state you are constrained by forces beyond your control. Such as:
“Due to ongoing litigation, I am prevented from responding at this time.” -or-
“I am unable to comment since that would betray a confidence I have sworn to protect.” -or- (the old standby)
“I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.”
What if the question, though direct, is difficult or complicated? You are not sure how to react. First, you can stall. Repeat the question verbatim (slowly if needed) in a confident voice, giving yourself a few precious seconds to think up a preferred response strategy. That helps the rest of the audience too, especially if the questioner is a relatively quiet or quick speaker. Second, you can verify the meaning of the question. One effective way is to restate it in your own words. That form of restating can be very helpful when the definition of certain words is uncertain or likely to vary and/or when breaking down the question into constituent parts is better. Furthermore, your rephrasing gives the questioner his own opportunity to explain the wording so all present can proceed with a common understanding of meaning. Consider this sequence:
Question: “What is your strategy for improving sales?”
Answer : “I assume you mean sales strategy improvement as long term steps for more repeat business, well as acquiring new customers.”
Question Rephrase: “Yes, I mean both continuing and new accounts.”
Answer Rephrase: “Alright, here is how I address those two needs…”
Also, what if you don’t know the answer? Don’t dissemble with obscure remarks. Rather than evading, admit it! But when you do that, do it skillfully. Make sure you (1) validate the question, (2) indicate some action to determine an answer, and (3) if possible, quote a time frame for the action. So…
“That is a good question. I do not have that information now, but I will look into it later today.”
That shows you respect the inquirer and will do your best to discover useful information. Note that the third step is optional but implies you have command of the truth process. But don’t promise a hard and fast answer deadline unless you are reasonably certain you can meet it. It may be harder to determine the answer than you think! Remember that every answer you give is not just an exchange of information. It builds your reputation. Are you an undependable, bob-and-weave artist, or a reliable, straight talker?
By the way, let me add a personal example. I volunteer at the world famous Chicago Botanic Garden. For several years I have led visitor groups on summer walking tours of its extensive grounds. I have given over 100 tours so far there. I carefully prepared for this role, learning all about the Garden, its history, landscaping, botany, and so forth. Plus, every year as the next season approaches I refresh my memory and add new information to my presentation. Of course participants always have questions, most of which I have heard and answered before. Yet, every season I receive certain new questions; often I do not know the answers to those. So I respond as I suggested above, i. e. thank the questioner and promise followup. Typically, visitors are satisfied with this response. After all, no one knows everything! And my presentation improves.
A last technique is especially good in collaborative efforts where more than one person is present to answer questions. For particular questions, the first person to respond, usually a team leader or more seasoned team member, hands off to a more appropriate colleague for reply. During my 40-year professional career, I participated in many interviews for new work with corporations, institutions, and government agencies. These job interviews always had a Q&A section. My team and I prepared in advance, especially practicing our answering techniques intensively. We realized that this was a great way to demonstrate the cohesiveness of our team and as a result to best the competition. After all, our aim was to sell a well-integrated groups of professionals with complementary skills to the prospective client, not one individual. For example:
Question: “Please describe your ability to ensure job safety.”
Answer: “Job safety is critical to project success. Let me ask my colleague, Gerald Fine, our designated Safety Coordinator, to detail our carefully structured approach to ensuring job safety. I also would like him, and our other colleagues here today, briefly to illustrate this approach on our actual projects.”
Now the client knows who is the watchdog in this area, plus has the commitment of the rest of the team and some real world examples to ponder. Like in volleyball, keeping the ball in the air demonstrates how teammates help each other and nail the ultimate win.
The Indirect Question
This type of inquiry is open-ended, not judgmental, more prone to intuition and emotion, i. e. from the heart. The indirect question can be expressed either in interrogatory or command sentence format. Such as:
“What do you think about our times?” -or- “Tell me about our times.”
Either way, you are being prompted to give your opinion rather than fact. You share impression rather than dependently verifiable data (although data may be included as needed to buttress belief). It is open-ended because you the answerer decide the complexity of response. You can be short and to the point, or expound at length. It is non-judgmental because, unlike in the previous section, there can be little or no “gotcha” component. Virtually any reply from you is welcome; in effect there is no wrong answer. This inquiry is in essence an amiable, social behavior, intended to lend a relaxed, friendly tone to the interaction.
The inquirer tends to use this approach when she does not know exactly what information to seek. Instead a broad topic is suggested which may lead to unexpected insights. The indirect question is a great way to start a mutually beneficial dialogue, a two-way communication process in which questioner and answerer collaborate in a joint search for truth. Each party alternately contributes knowledge (often trading Q&A roles back and forth), with the ultimate goal of enhanced common understanding.
This form also is very good in tense situations. It can help defuse hostility between people on opposite sides of an issue. The question implies putting aside preconceptions and simply listening to the other side with respect and open mindedness. Everyone likes to be respected. Most welcome an open mind. Asking amiable, open-ended questions demonstrates those virtues effectively.
It is harder to justify refusing to give a response to indirect questions since only an opinion is requested. However, the same techniques I suggested above about handling direct questions still apply. You can politely cite constraints, offer to do research, or use a turn.
The Rhetorical Question
This inquiry type is not really a question at all. In other words, no response is sought for a rhetorical question. It is just an expression of emotion revealed in the guise of an interrogatory sentence. Rather than seeking information, that sentence type gives extra emotional charge to an outburst of feeling. It emphasizes a point, often about a truth the questioner already knows.
“What times are these!”
“Do you believe this!”
“If you prick us, do we not bleed?” (Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”)
A hearer still can choose to reply, for example to express empathy; but that action is optional. Sometimes it is uncertain whether a question is indeed rhetorical or not. The responder can modify or limit his answer to acknowledge this possibility.
“If you want my opinion, times are tough, but I think we are through the worst of it.”
The Pivot
I want to talk separately about one time-tested answer strategy that is particularly controversial. That is the Pivot, (beloved by politicians and sundry spokespersons) in which, instead of supplying a true answer to the question, the responder comments on a different subject. It is a pivot because the response redirects audience attention. This technique usually seeks to prevent what the answerer perceives as significant risks, such as potential damage to intangible value (reputation, power, etc.) or harm to tangible value (money, time, etc.). Often abused yet often successful. For example:
Q: “Your opponent advocates free health care for all Americans. What is your position on this bold proposal?”
A: “My view is that we all would be better served to help our citizens make well-informed decisions about their lifestyles. That means educational reform, which as you know I have a comprehensive program to improve. Let me summarize again that program’s initiatives…”
No, he really did not answer the question about health care. But by pivoting to education, another area that many people feel is very important, the responder reframed the discussion along more friendly lines. If he gives a skillfully delivered reply, communication studies have shown the audience will think well of him, even though he dodged the initial inquiry. Let us remember, audience members judge a speaker on numerous aspects of his presentation, such as non-verbal communication, emotional projection, visual appearance, etc. WHAT the speaker says is only ONE of these aspects. Let me repeat; if the person responding projects confident, coherent remarks, the audience will tend to favor him, even though he pivoted!
Is pivoting fair? Is it ethical? Like many things in life, it depends! If the question is off the topic of the event, or a ‘gotcha’ type, or just irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, then pivoting is perfectly fine. Still, it can be a slippery slope to a morass of double speak. I personally try to avoid pivoting unless it is absolutely necessary. Regardless, in each case, you decide.
****
All right. You have seen my views on effective answers. They depend on context, risk/reward analysis, and what to do if you can’t or won’t give an answer. In general I believe in telling the truth. Well, at least as you understand it. But for complex queries, you should also explain the limitations, consequences, and/or benefits and costs of such truth telling. The art of the answer is all about information exchange beneficial to both sides of the equation. Don’t forget, it is also about display of character. Over time, that reputation building can be of way more lasting importance than the one time contents of your reply.
Let me end with one of my favorite literary passages about a critical (actually THE critical) answer. These lines are from famous Scifi author and satirist Douglas Adam’s novel “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. In this scene, after seven and a half million years of constant analysis, the greatest computer ever devised, Deep Thought, presents the answer to “Life, the Universe, and everything”:
“Good morning,” said Deep Thought at last.
“Er…good morning, O Deep Thought,” said Loonquawl nervously. “Do you have … er, that is …”
“An answer for you?” interrupted Deep Thought majestically. “Yes, I have.”
The two men shivered with expectancy. Their waiting had not been in vain.
“There really is one?” breathed Phouchg.
“There really is one,” confirmed Deep Thought.
To everything? To the great question of Life, the Universe, and everything?”
“Yes.” ….
“Though I don’t think,” added Deep Thought, “That you’re going to like it.”
“Doesn’t matter,” said Phouchg. “We must know it. Now!”
“Now?” inquired Deep Thought.
“Yes… now!”
“All right,” said the computer, and settled in silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable. “You’re really not going to like it,” observed Deep Thought.
“Tell us!”
“All right. The answer to the Great Question…”
“Yes…!”
“Of Life, the Universe and everything…” said Deep Thought.
“Yes…!”
“Is…” said Deep Thought, and paused.
“Yes…!!!”
“Forty-two,” said Deep Thought with infinite majesty and calm.
Of course, there is much more to that story. With the ensuing uproar of disappointment, it was decided to supersede Deep Thought with an even greater computer. Why? In order – you guessed it – to determine the right question! The art of the answer, and of the underlying question, keeps evolving.