When Something Goes Wrong, Good Leaders Don’t Ask Why

The following is adapted from The Leadership PIN Code.

When something goes wrong, people tend to ask why. Think of the parent who is upset with a child and asks him, “Why did you do that? Why did you break it?” It may seem natural to ask “why,” but that’s not the language of influential leadership. 

The blaming or accusatory tone of “why” creates a defensive reaction. If a project manager, for example, turns up in the leader’s office to give the news that the project is drastically over budget and will miss the delivery deadline, the leader often questions why that happened. The “why” becomes something that drives a personal accusation and a shift in accountability and responsibility solely to the employee.

Asking “why” is great for understanding root cause analysis, which is a method used by many professionals to understand and prevent for example incidents. Root cause analysis is a critical tool in these cases. You use it to drill down until you get to the core causes, asking questions that are data-driven. However, save the “why” for situations and cases, not for dealing with people.

Who, What, When, and Where are questions that drive curious questioning. Asking questions that focus on what happened rather than why someone did something tends to be more revealing and are rarely perceived as accusatory. Questions such as, “What could have been done differently?” “What was the earliest point that you understood the project was going to be delayed?,” and “Who was involved?” will lead to solid answers and solutions. 

Learning and using different styles of questions to steer a conversation may seem manipulative. But think of reciprocity and the idea of servant leadership. When you are motivated by the question of what others need from you so they can do their job in the best possible way, that’s not manipulation; that’s serving.

Instead of asking, “Why did you do that?” ask, “How did you decide to do that?” Instead of asking “Why do you always submit projects late?” ask, “Where could you find help to get this finished?” 

The former questions are closed. They don’t invite deep responses. The latter, on the other hand, are open and curious. They offer an opportunity for the other person to share useful feedback and for you to have a better understanding of yourself. They keep you in learning mode by providing you with data.

Literature about staying curious is prolific. The innovation rhetoric encourages experimentation and curiosity about doing things differently. Everyone nowadays is talking about digitalization, automation, improving efficiency, reducing waste and unnecessary activity.

Whilst curious questioning is a great tool to stimulate innovation, it is also extremely useful for conflict resolution. When people feel threatened or criticized, becoming defensive is a natural reaction. They make statements to defend themselves. Curious questioning is a brilliant way to remain offensive and look for data that can be disputed or countered with facts that will move the conversation or situation past the point of conflict.

What’s more, don’t kill the messenger. It might well be that the issue lies in how you, as a leader, presented the task, clarity or lack thereof in your expectations, assumptions that were not explicitly discussed, lack of trust in the relationship, so the other party didn’t feel comfortable coming back to you for support earlier in the process, or a lack of follow up on your part. 

The main difference between responsibility and accountability is that responsibility can be shared while accountability cannot. As the leader, you are always accountable for whether the various responsibilities within your team are achieved as executed. Rarely is only one person responsible for any outcome. Asking the right questions can lead to improved mutual understanding and to a collaborative resolution.

Stay in curious mode and get to know the person or group to whom you’re speaking as well as you can. You can then determine the questioning style that will be most effective. Remember the platinum rule: it’s not about how you’d like to deliver the message but how the receiver would like to hear the message.

For more advice on curious questions, you can find The Leadership PIN Code on Amazon.

Dr. Nashater Deu Solheim brings a new toolkit to leadership development that is backed by decades of integrated experience in the areas of business and psychology. As a former forensic psychologist with clinical research in the neuropsychology of criminal minds, she developed a deep interest in effective learning strategies for lasting success. Now, as an expert negotiator who studied at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Dr. Solheim has combined her experience as an executive leader in international private companies and government ministries to present The Leadership PIN Code, the definitive guide for helping business leaders secure influence and impactful results.