This is something that comes off as incredibly patronizing, right along with the JAQing form of discussion where someone doesn't share their own thoughts but consistently asks "why not...
Exemplary
This is something that comes off as incredibly patronizing, right along with the JAQing form of discussion where someone doesn't share their own thoughts but consistently asks "why not [contradictory thing to what you just said]." For both, there's no ownership of your actual position and there's not really a seeking of understanding, just contradiction.
Even inside the therapeutic world, many people are not great at using questions to help someone else realize something. The average person is worse. Some teachers excel with it but I've also had superiors who would respond to "hey just letting you know I've done X, Y, and Z on this, is there anything else I'm missing that needs doing?" with "What do you think?" and what I think is not appropriate for a response.
Eg beginning with something like “how would you feel about doing the infra project instead of the research project?” (which may surface useful info immediately!) followed by “Hmm, I’m not super convinced the research project is the highest priority thing to do next - want to think through this?”
The first sentence is fine. The second one feels patronizing. Most people lack the humility to pull it off and I'd feel like the first question was insincere. I do get asked for general feedback and that feedback has changed things, but I don't feel like I'm being manipulated in the process and prefer to know when I shouldn't be wasting my time with the feedback. The "super convinced" and "want to think through this" are part of what makes it bad
The PhD example I think highlights the problem, are we "giving advice" or helping the person make the best decision for them? They seem confused to their own purpose.
This is a useful skill set - but I would love to hear how people receiving this feel about their experience. I don't use my "how to help people change their mind" therapy skills in my management, because you are just professionally manipulating people and the people I supervise and work know it.
It seems like it could turn out well or badly, depending on the manager's people skills and the situation? And also, it's the sort of thing you can't learn from just reading about it.
It seems like it could turn out well or badly, depending on the manager's people skills and the situation? And also, it's the sort of thing you can't learn from just reading about it.
I mean, sure, I can see someone who's better at this than the author coming across more positively and less condescending with the same approach. But the article is ultimately arguing for this...
I mean, sure, I can see someone who's better at this than the author coming across more positively and less condescending with the same approach. But the article is ultimately arguing for this approach, not just "being a skilled communicator." If the approach only works when you're already sufficiently wise and charismatic that you'd be able to do well communicating the same information without this approach... it's not exactly selling me on the approach itself.
The author also claims that this approach "fails gracefully," but it absolutely doesn't meet that criterion if you come across as extremely condescending with your questions the way the author of the article does. Unless the author doesn't think making his employees feel belittled and condescended to amounts to ungraceful failure, but I think that would be an uncharitable take (especially since the author himself acknowledges these same potential issues with this approach himself in the piece!)
I don't understand the question you're asking, it feels like a statement. Are you asking if I agree? I don't. But it also doesn't really say anything but that it could go any which way. If you...
I don't understand the question you're asking, it feels like a statement. Are you asking if I agree? I don't. But it also doesn't really say anything but that it could go any which way. If you weren't intending to provide an example of a contradictory question, there's perhaps some irony here. Imo most of his work examples would make me feel talked down to.
I'm aware you can't learn the "skill" from reading about it, but reading this, I would hate working for him. He's clumsy at it, but it's just manipulation. It edges around therapy speak, but it's condescending from jump. If I'm using motivational interviewing or therapeutic techniques (which are similar but different) at work, it's with the students whose behavior I'm trying to change, not my colleagues or subordinates.
If he actually were coming in with humility he wouldn't be phrasing his questions with an outcome in mind. While he might change his mind somewhat, he's having to be convinced away from it, and the point isn't actually what you think or feel, it's to tell you how you did something wrong or convince you of his POV (or whatever his opinion on the topic is). It's why the Socratic method is annoying in general but especially in a work environment.
Or put another way,
"Interesting, I disagree a fair bit with that. Want to walk through how we’re both thinking about this and see where we disagree?"
Because my answer would be no to anyone asking me this question in this way, and you can't usually tell your boss that.
I was using a rhetorical question to express my doubts. I've read a few research papers by Nanda and I thought they were interesting, but since I never met him, I don't think I've learned enough...
I was using a rhetorical question to express my doubts. I've read a few research papers by Nanda and I thought they were interesting, but since I never met him, I don't think I've learned enough about him to judge whether or not he would be a good manager to work for. Perhaps this technique works for him.
I've worked on teams where we talked over what worked and what didn't every week, and I thought it was somewhat helpful.
Ah, I disagree with your statement phrased as a rhetorical question. But it did serve as an example of why using questions, especially ones you don't mean to have answered, is not necessarily...
Ah, I disagree with your statement phrased as a rhetorical question. But it did serve as an example of why using questions, especially ones you don't mean to have answered, is not necessarily useful.
Every team should talk over what works and what doesn't. That's vastly different than “huh, I’m surprised that took you a month. Want to reflect on exactly what happened, and if it could go faster next time?”
This quote asks the employee to reflect and clearly tells the employee they were surprisingly slow. It couches it in the form of a question, but tells the employee they should have gone faster and will be expected to do so. While hypothetically you can change this boss's mind, he's not actually coming without a conclusion, you have to convince him to change his existing opinion.
There are ways to solicit feedback and to give your own without manipulating the conversation clumsily. At least manipulate it well. I could have a planned conversation about completion time amidst a group or individual feedback session without coming off as patronizing. I have done this. And I've had plenty of conversations that didn't go well too, those happen, but I'm not writing a blog explaining my system.
For me, if you've written up a whole long post about your supervision style, and after reading your take, which is probably the most positive representation of you, I can tell I would hate working for you... I very much want to know what their employees think. It doesn't really matter what works for him - they can't really tell him no - it matters whether he's being a good leader. Maybe his employees love it, but my response as a supervisor, and with the experience and knowledge I have, is that this is bad advice to follow as your employees will feel disrespected.
Wow; I haven’t had this strong a negative response to something in a while! Interesting. So we’re abandoning the pretext of using this to examine ideas, and are using it to reinforce conclusions....
Wow; I haven’t had this strong a negative response to something in a while! Interesting.
Scenario: When a mentee/someone I manage has spent a month on a project that I think should have taken a week.
[…] Framing: “huh, I’m surprised that took you a month. Want to reflect on exactly what happened, and if it could go faster next time?”
[…] So I want to both confirm that they actually could have gone much faster, and then keep the conversation focused on actionable next steps and future changes.
So we’re abandoning the pretext of using this to examine ideas, and are using it to reinforce conclusions. Nice. If the goal were to determine the gap in the manager’s estimation skills, the framing would be:
“Oh shit, sorry, I thought this would take a quarter as long as it did. I thought the timeline would breakdown like <explain timeline>; could you help me understand where that went wrong? I want to make sure our other tasks don’t have similar time bombs.”
Instead we have the actual usage for this approach, which is browbeating people who fall below you in the social hierarchy by belittling them through a thin veneer of logic. If this were a Socratic dialog, the questions would run both ways: in practice, this is a manager saving face while reprimanding an underling. Fascinating stuff.
Edit: not to mention the implicit failure of a manager allowing work to go on three hundred percent past its deadline before intervening.
To be fair, he emphasizes multiple times how important it is to change your mind if it's warranted. And in that example:
To be fair, he emphasizes multiple times how important it is to change your mind if it's warranted. And in that example:
Maybe we conclude it couldn’t have gone faster, but I think it just wasn’t worth it – I might then pivot into “should we have dropped it?” and, if so, “how could we notice when similar future projects become no longer worth it?
Fair enough. I think the discussion in the other thread encapsulates my thoughts more cleanly than I could put to words here, but to attempt to summarize poorly: the power dynamic implied between...
Fair enough. I think the discussion in the other thread encapsulates my thoughts more cleanly than I could put to words here, but to attempt to summarize poorly: the power dynamic implied between an employer and an employee make it an uphill battle to have a collaborative conversation.
Further, I’d add that most definitions of the socratic method imply working from an open mind, not beginning with an assumption and demanding arguments to the contrary. All these examples start with the author wanting to convince someone, using probing questions to find weaknesses in their opponent’s logic, then striking under the guise of good faith questioning.
Your goal as a philosopher is to seek truth, not to force it upon others. This guy is … something else.
Your post reminded me of a recent incident I witnessed at my son's jujitsu class. In a class of 4-5 year old, the coach was frustrated that they weren't listening well enough. He ranted to them...
Your post reminded me of a recent incident I witnessed at my son's jujitsu class. In a class of 4-5 year old, the coach was frustrated that they weren't listening well enough. He ranted to them about a few things but among them was that during the recent tournament "not one of [them] executed such-and-such a move, not one!"
While not at all an example of this kind of asking-not-asking dialogue, it similarly falls into the trap of asking a subordinate what they did wrong instead of trying to figure out how the subordinate/teacher interactions had a 100% failure rate.
Here's the summary: I wouldn't expect this to work online due to lack of trust. Asking questions when you think you know the answers is often considered suspicious.
Here's the summary:
I recommend giving advice by asking questions to walk someone through key steps in my argument — often I’m missing key info, which comes up quickly as an unexpected answer, while if I’m right I’m more persuasive, and can still express my case. This is useful in a wide range of settings, as a manager, managee, friend, and mentor, and is better for both parties, if you have the time and energy and are able to seriously engage with whether you are wrong.
I wouldn't expect this to work online due to lack of trust. Asking questions when you think you know the answers is often considered suspicious.
I don't think this reframing (socratic method/questioning -> socratic persuasion) adds any real value to the original concept. It serves to put people in the exact mindset that should be avoided...
I don't think this reframing (socratic method/questioning -> socratic persuasion) adds any real value to the original concept. It serves to put people in the exact mindset that should be avoided if we are to use the method successfully.
Humility is crucial: To do Socratic persuasion well you need to really internalise that you have a decent chance of being wrong.
Then why call it 'persuasion'?
(Also, why is everything a bullet point? Did this person not read what his LLMs spit out or did he actively decide to hit publish with this formatting?)
This is something that comes off as incredibly patronizing, right along with the JAQing form of discussion where someone doesn't share their own thoughts but consistently asks "why not [contradictory thing to what you just said]." For both, there's no ownership of your actual position and there's not really a seeking of understanding, just contradiction.
Even inside the therapeutic world, many people are not great at using questions to help someone else realize something. The average person is worse. Some teachers excel with it but I've also had superiors who would respond to "hey just letting you know I've done X, Y, and Z on this, is there anything else I'm missing that needs doing?" with "What do you think?" and what I think is not appropriate for a response.
The first sentence is fine. The second one feels patronizing. Most people lack the humility to pull it off and I'd feel like the first question was insincere. I do get asked for general feedback and that feedback has changed things, but I don't feel like I'm being manipulated in the process and prefer to know when I shouldn't be wasting my time with the feedback. The "super convinced" and "want to think through this" are part of what makes it bad
The PhD example I think highlights the problem, are we "giving advice" or helping the person make the best decision for them? They seem confused to their own purpose.
This is a useful skill set - but I would love to hear how people receiving this feel about their experience. I don't use my "how to help people change their mind" therapy skills in my management, because you are just professionally manipulating people and the people I supervise and work know it.
It seems like it could turn out well or badly, depending on the manager's people skills and the situation? And also, it's the sort of thing you can't learn from just reading about it.
I mean, sure, I can see someone who's better at this than the author coming across more positively and less condescending with the same approach. But the article is ultimately arguing for this approach, not just "being a skilled communicator." If the approach only works when you're already sufficiently wise and charismatic that you'd be able to do well communicating the same information without this approach... it's not exactly selling me on the approach itself.
The author also claims that this approach "fails gracefully," but it absolutely doesn't meet that criterion if you come across as extremely condescending with your questions the way the author of the article does. Unless the author doesn't think making his employees feel belittled and condescended to amounts to ungraceful failure, but I think that would be an uncharitable take (especially since the author himself acknowledges these same potential issues with this approach himself in the piece!)
I don't understand the question you're asking, it feels like a statement. Are you asking if I agree? I don't. But it also doesn't really say anything but that it could go any which way. If you weren't intending to provide an example of a contradictory question, there's perhaps some irony here. Imo most of his work examples would make me feel talked down to.
I'm aware you can't learn the "skill" from reading about it, but reading this, I would hate working for him. He's clumsy at it, but it's just manipulation. It edges around therapy speak, but it's condescending from jump. If I'm using motivational interviewing or therapeutic techniques (which are similar but different) at work, it's with the students whose behavior I'm trying to change, not my colleagues or subordinates.
If he actually were coming in with humility he wouldn't be phrasing his questions with an outcome in mind. While he might change his mind somewhat, he's having to be convinced away from it, and the point isn't actually what you think or feel, it's to tell you how you did something wrong or convince you of his POV (or whatever his opinion on the topic is). It's why the Socratic method is annoying in general but especially in a work environment.
Or put another way,
"Interesting, I disagree a fair bit with that. Want to walk through how we’re both thinking about this and see where we disagree?"
Because my answer would be no to anyone asking me this question in this way, and you can't usually tell your boss that.
I was using a rhetorical question to express my doubts. I've read a few research papers by Nanda and I thought they were interesting, but since I never met him, I don't think I've learned enough about him to judge whether or not he would be a good manager to work for. Perhaps this technique works for him.
I've worked on teams where we talked over what worked and what didn't every week, and I thought it was somewhat helpful.
Ah, I disagree with your statement phrased as a rhetorical question. But it did serve as an example of why using questions, especially ones you don't mean to have answered, is not necessarily useful.
Every team should talk over what works and what doesn't. That's vastly different than “huh, I’m surprised that took you a month. Want to reflect on exactly what happened, and if it could go faster next time?”
This quote asks the employee to reflect and clearly tells the employee they were surprisingly slow. It couches it in the form of a question, but tells the employee they should have gone faster and will be expected to do so. While hypothetically you can change this boss's mind, he's not actually coming without a conclusion, you have to convince him to change his existing opinion.
There are ways to solicit feedback and to give your own without manipulating the conversation clumsily. At least manipulate it well. I could have a planned conversation about completion time amidst a group or individual feedback session without coming off as patronizing. I have done this. And I've had plenty of conversations that didn't go well too, those happen, but I'm not writing a blog explaining my system.
For me, if you've written up a whole long post about your supervision style, and after reading your take, which is probably the most positive representation of you, I can tell I would hate working for you... I very much want to know what their employees think. It doesn't really matter what works for him - they can't really tell him no - it matters whether he's being a good leader. Maybe his employees love it, but my response as a supervisor, and with the experience and knowledge I have, is that this is bad advice to follow as your employees will feel disrespected.
Wow; I haven’t had this strong a negative response to something in a while! Interesting.
So we’re abandoning the pretext of using this to examine ideas, and are using it to reinforce conclusions. Nice. If the goal were to determine the gap in the manager’s estimation skills, the framing would be:
“Oh shit, sorry, I thought this would take a quarter as long as it did. I thought the timeline would breakdown like <explain timeline>; could you help me understand where that went wrong? I want to make sure our other tasks don’t have similar time bombs.”
Instead we have the actual usage for this approach, which is browbeating people who fall below you in the social hierarchy by belittling them through a thin veneer of logic. If this were a Socratic dialog, the questions would run both ways: in practice, this is a manager saving face while reprimanding an underling. Fascinating stuff.
Edit: not to mention the implicit failure of a manager allowing work to go on three hundred percent past its deadline before intervening.
To be fair, he emphasizes multiple times how important it is to change your mind if it's warranted. And in that example:
Fair enough. I think the discussion in the other thread encapsulates my thoughts more cleanly than I could put to words here, but to attempt to summarize poorly: the power dynamic implied between an employer and an employee make it an uphill battle to have a collaborative conversation.
Further, I’d add that most definitions of the socratic method imply working from an open mind, not beginning with an assumption and demanding arguments to the contrary. All these examples start with the author wanting to convince someone, using probing questions to find weaknesses in their opponent’s logic, then striking under the guise of good faith questioning.
Your goal as a philosopher is to seek truth, not to force it upon others. This guy is … something else.
Your post reminded me of a recent incident I witnessed at my son's jujitsu class. In a class of 4-5 year old, the coach was frustrated that they weren't listening well enough. He ranted to them about a few things but among them was that during the recent tournament "not one of [them] executed such-and-such a move, not one!"
While not at all an example of this kind of asking-not-asking dialogue, it similarly falls into the trap of asking a subordinate what they did wrong instead of trying to figure out how the subordinate/teacher interactions had a 100% failure rate.
Here's the summary:
I wouldn't expect this to work online due to lack of trust. Asking questions when you think you know the answers is often considered suspicious.
I don't think this reframing (socratic method/questioning -> socratic persuasion) adds any real value to the original concept. It serves to put people in the exact mindset that should be avoided if we are to use the method successfully.
Then why call it 'persuasion'?
(Also, why is everything a bullet point? Did this person not read what his LLMs spit out or did he actively decide to hit publish with this formatting?)