Bridging Humble Inquiry and High Accountability
I talk a lot about Humble Inquiry and the power of the open-ended question. I’ll admit it’s not uncommon for folks to nod affirmingly, maybe a bit wistfully, then follow up with something along the lines of, "This humble inquiry stuff sounds really lovely, but it’s just not practical where I work."
There seems to be a common sentiment that humble inquiry requires a level of spaciousness limited to the ivory towers of corporate contexts, and that, when the stakes are high, and the boots hit the ground, and the proverbial rubber meets the road, open-ended questions and humility become more of a leadership vulnerability than a strength.
I get it. That perception is rational, though not necessarily accurate. When we are facing hazardous environments, tight timelines, and incomplete information, people expect and deserve clear, decisive leadership. When we’re all looking to the person in charge to signal assuredness and calm, the last thing we want is to sense uncertainty, or worse, an abdication of responsibility, arriving in the form of questions.
Having spent much of my career in offshore and remote operations, I can feel this tension viscerally. I have been on both sides of that equation. I also think it’s a perception that deserves some pressure-testing. Fundamentally, responsibility for a decision includes understanding the conditions and context in which that decision will play out, and some of that understanding will inherently sit with other people. (Unless, of course, you are an island unto thyself, though 17th-century John Donne would disagree with both the premise and the grammatical structure.)
Last month, we explored how questions can shape a dialogue. This month, we’re extending that exploration to high-stakes environments and high-accountability contexts.
What emergency management can teach us about questions
In our podcast conversation with Thea Charles and Bob Greene, I shared an example from Major Emergency Management training that teaches On Scene Commanders to ask, “What have I missed?” during their time-outs.
You’ll notice we don’t ask, “Have I missed anything?” That style of closed question typically leads to a quick, easy “nope.” Even a slight shift to an open version can normalize the idea that we may, in fact, have actually missed something.
In their book, Humble Inquiry, Edgar and Peter Schein describe a leadership approach grounded in (genuine) curiosity and asking questions whose answers we do not already know. The “humble” part lets us stay open to hearing the answers.
There is a direct connection to high-reliability practice. AHRQ’s overview of high-reliability organizations identifies deference to expertise as a core principle. The person with the most relevant knowledge may have considerably less formal authority than the person making the decision. A leader’s role is to ensure the team surfaces the needed information and expertise to reach the best outcome.
Make ownership explicit when seeking input
Power differentials and hierarchy can impact how our questions land. In a collaborative, low power-differential environment, the question, “What do you think we should do?” can be heard as an invitation. But in a different context, where individuals are more accustomed to receiving instructions, it may leave folks wondering whether they are now on the hook for a decision they lack the authority to make. “I dunno. You’re the boss. You tell me.”
We can create the safety and security for someone to answer by making the expectations and our own responsibility explicit. For example:
“I’m going to make the decision, and I’ll own the outcome. Your role right now is to share the information and context that you have so that I can make a more informed call. What risks do you see if we proceed with this plan?”
Where timing matters, we should make that clear as well: “We have five minutes to gather input before I decide.”
Thea offered a helpful suggestion in our recent podcast conversation: we can clarify what we are doing and why. This is especially important if we are changing how we lead. People deserve enough context to understand the change. This might entail explaining that we are asking because their perspective gives us information we can't access from our own vantage point.
Of course, decision ownership varies. Sometimes authority belongs with another person or is shared within an agreed process. The point is to name it accurately. Leaders also need to respect established escalation routes and authority to stop unsafe work.
Explain the method behind the question
I recently finished reading Therese Huston’s How Women Decide, which explores gender and how people judge decision-makers. It has me thinking about how easily seeking input can be interpreted as indecision, particularly for women whose competence is already being scrutinized.
Making our method visible, i.e., showing our work, can help. We might explain: “I’m in data-gathering mode so I can better understand the lay of the land before I choose a course of action. Your experience and insight will help me assess the options.”
That gives people a way to understand the question as part of a deliberate decision process. It also raises a (sometimes uncomfortable) question for organizations about whose requests for input tend to be interpreted as thoroughness, and whose are interpreted as uncertainty. Leaders should be able to seek information openly and have that care count in their favor, regardless of gender.
Ask questions people can use
A broad “What do you think?” can leave someone feeling burdened or overwhelmed. Specificity helps, particularly under pressure.
Useful questions include:
“What risks do you see if we proceed?”
“What have you seen fail in similar circumstances?”
“Where might I have blind spots here?”
“What’s one change that would make this plan more workable?”
“What are three ways this could go wrong?”
“What should we make sure we retain?”
“What haven’t I asked that could affect this decision?”
Bounding the request by asking for “one change” or “three ways” can make the question feel more manageable, providing a starting point to expand from.
The next key step is to actually stop and LISTEN. When you’re trying to gather information and incentivize individuals to contribute their perspective, it’s important to avoid arguing or dismissing inputs. This becomes especially pertinent in contexts with high power differentials. That hierarchy already creates a barrier to input, and you have to work explicitly to counter it. Even if it’s a low-quality contribution, we should affirm the addition so that we don’t shut down further inputs.
Match inquiry to the time available
I do want to clarify a distinction here: high stakes can absolutely be different than high urgency. An important decision may have a long timeline. An active emergency may limit us to a brief exchange within an established response protocol.
There will absolutely be times when direct instructions and closed questions are required, especially when we are confirming a specific fact. We’ll also have opportunities to ask what has changed, what someone is observing, or what we might have missed. The skill and discernment come from tailoring the questions to the context.
After a decision’s been made, it’s important to close the loop. This typically entails explaining the action, clarifying who is doing what, and identifying what may need to be revisited or reassessed. When changing inputs require a changing plan, we should acknowledge it. And where questions remain, we should explain how they will be addressed.
Put this into practice with your team
The next time you arrive at a decision point with your team, you can try putting this into practice by making three things explicit: who owns the decision, what input is needed, and when action is required. Ask one focused question, allow time for the answer, and explain what happens next.
At Two Piers, we help leaders develop these practices through executive coaching, team coaching, and practical leadership education. We also work with the organizational conditions around them by addressing the system factors that can impact quality decision-making and performance.
If your leaders are navigating complex contexts and high-stakes environments, book a complimentary consultation. We can explore where support would be most useful for your team and how to build the practice into everyday work.