Communication is essential in a healthy organization. But all too often when we interact with people—especially those who report to us—we simply tell them what we think they need to know. This shuts them down. To generate bold new ideas, to avoid disastrous mistakes, to develop agility and flexibility, we need to practice Humble Inquiry.
Ed Schein defines Humble Inquiry as “the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person.” In this seminal work, Schein contrasts Humble Inquiry with other kinds of inquiry, shows the benefits Humble Inquiry provides in many different settings, and offers advice on overcoming the cultural, organizational, and psychological barriers that keep us from practicing it.
Review
“An invaluable guide for a consultant trying to understand and untangle system and interpersonal knots. Written with a beguiling simplicity and clarity, it is laden with wisdom and practicality.” —Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Stanford University
“The lessons contained in this deceptively simple book reach beyond the author's experience gained from a lifetime of consultation to organizations of all sizes and shapes. It provides life lessons for us all. If, as a result of reading this book, you begin to practice the art of humble asking, you will have taken an important step toward living wisely.” —Samuel Jay Keyser, Peter de Florez Professor Emeritus, MIT
“This book seriously challenges leaders to re-examine the emphasis on task orientation and ‘telling' subordinates how best to do their jobs. Humble Inquiry increases organizational capacity to learn more from cross-cultural teamwork, reduces stress, and increases organizational engagement and productivity.” —Jyotsna Sanzgiri, MBA, PhD, Professor, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University
“This book is particularly important for leaders who in these complex times need advice and tools for building trust in their relationships with subordinates individually or in teams.” —Danica Purg, President, IEDC-Bled School of Management, Bled, Slovenia
“This book is an exercise in inquiry by a recognized master of humble insight.” —Art Kleiner, Editor-in-Chief, Booz & Company/strategy+business
“Ed Schein has provided a new and thoughtful reframing of interpersonal dynamics through the notion of Humble Inquiry. This short book is packed with insights as Schein rigorously explores the impact of his ideas in his usually clear and readable style.” —Michael Brimm, Professor of Organizational Behavior, INSEAD Europe
“Humble Inquiry is an elegant treatment of how to go about building and sustaining solid, trusting relationships in or out of the workplace. A masterful take on a critical human skill too infrequently practiced.” —John Van Maanen, Erwin Schell Professor of Management and Professor of Organization Studies, MIT
“A fast read and full of insight! Schein uses stories from his personal life and his successful career as a process consultant that pointedly ask, ‘How willing are you to cast aside hierarchy? How personal are you willing to be?' Considering the cultural, occupational, generational, and gender communication barriers we face every day, Humble Inquiry proposes a very practical, nonthreatening approach to bridging those gaps and increasing the mutual understanding that leads to operational excellence.” —Rosa Antonia Carrillo, MSOD, safety leadership consultant
“A remarkably valuable guide for anyone interested in leading more effectively and building strong relationships. Ed Schein presents vivid examples grounded in a lifetime of experience as husband, father, teacher, administrator, and consultant.” —Robert B. McKersie, Professor Emeritus, Sloan School of Management, MIT
“Ed Schein has an eye for bold yet subtle insights into the big picture and a knack for writing about them clearly. Humble Inquiry—like his previous book Helping—shows that he is equally talented at bringing fresh thinking to well-trodden ground.” —Grady McGonagill, EdD, Principal, McGonagill Consulting
“What did I gain from reading Humble Inquiry? I became more aware of the subtle but powerful ways we affect each other as we talk and how the right kind of questions can dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of communication, with benefits that range from increased patient safety and satisfaction to employee motivation and morale to organizational performance. You can't afford to not know about this.” —Anthony Suchman, MD, MA, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
“With the world as his classroom, Ed Schein continues to guide us through modern day chaos with the powerful behaviors of Helping and Humble Inquiry. This is a must-read for anyone who truly wishes to achieve important goals!” —Marjorie M. Godfrey, Codirector, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Microsystem Academy
“I have had the privilege of working with Ed Schein. Reading Humble Inquiry I could hear his voice asking me those humble questions that joined us in a mutual search for the answer. His book distills what he has learned and practiced in a lifetime of helping high-powered leaders be even more successful.” —Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman, CEO and President, PG&E Corporation
“Schein helps us understand the importance of transcending hierarchy and authority to build authentic relationships predicated on trust and respect. Humble iInquiry is a powerful approach to building safe environments for our people and, ultimately, our patients.” —Gary S. Kaplan MD, Chairman and CEO, Virginia Mason Health System
“Quiet wisdom from an expert, enlivened by personal examples. Insightful and easy to read, it made me look again at my own behavior in my relationships, both at work and in the home.” —Charles Handy
About the Author
Edgar H. Schein is the Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Management Emeritus at the MIT Sloan School of Management. His previous books include Helping; Process Consultation Revisited; The Corporate Culture Survival Guide; DEC Is Dead, Long Live DEC; Organizational Culture and Leadership; and Career Anchors.
Introduction: Creating Positive Relationships and Effective Organizations..11 Humble Inquiry...........................................................72 Humble Inquiry in Practice—Case Examples.................................213 Differentiating Humble Inquiry from Other Kinds of Inquiry...............394 The Culture of Do and Tell...............................................535 Status, Rank, and Role Boundaries as Inhibitors..........................696 Forces Inside Us as Inhibitors...........................................837 Developing the Attitude of Humble Inquiry................................99Notes......................................................................111Acknowledgments............................................................113Index......................................................................115About the Author...........................................................119Author Awards..............................................................123
CHAPTER 1
Humble Inquiry
When conversations go wrong, when our bestadvice is ignored, when we get upset with the advice thatothers give us, when our subordinates fail to tell us thingsthat would improve matters or avoid pitfalls, when discussionsturn into arguments that end in stalemates and hurtfeelings—what went wrong and what could have been doneto get better outcomes?
A vivid example came from one of my executive studentsin the MIT Sloan Program who was studying for hisimportant finance exam in his basement study. He hadexplicitly instructed his six-year-old daughter not to interrupthim. He was deep into his work when a knock on thedoor announced the arrival of his daughter. He said sharply,"I thought I told you not to interrupt me." The little girl burstinto tears and ran off. The next morning his wife beratedhim for upsetting the daughter. He defended himself vigorouslyuntil his wife interrupted and said, "I sent her downto you to say goodnight and ask you if you wanted a cup ofcoffee to help with your studying. Why did you yell at herinstead of asking her why she was there?"
How can we do better? The answer is simple, but itsimplementation is not. We would have to do three things:1) do less telling; 2) learn to do more asking in the particularform of Humble Inquiry; and 3) do a better job of listeningand acknowledging. Talking and listening have receivedenormous attention via hundreds of books on communication.But the social art of asking a question has beenstrangely neglected.
Yet what we ask and the particular form in which weask it—what I describe as Humble Inquiry—is ultimately thebasis for building trusting relationships, which facilitatesbetter communication and, thereby, ensures collaborationwhere it is needed to get the job done.
Some tasks can be accomplished by each person doinghis or her own thing. If that is the case, building relationshipsand improving communication may not matter. In theteam sports of basketball, soccer, and hockey, teamwork is desirable but not essential. But when all the parties have todo the right thing—when there is complete, simultaneousinterdependence, as in a seesaw or a relay race—then goodrelationships and open communication become essential .
How Does Asking Build Relationships?
We all live in a culture of Tell and find it difficult to ask, especiallyto ask in a humble way. What is so wrong with telling?The short answer is a sociological one. Telling puts theother person down. It implies that the other person does notalready know what I am telling and that the other personought to know it. Often when I am told something that I didnot ask about, I find that I already know that and wonderwhy the person assumes that I don't. When I am told thingsthat I already know or have thought of, at the minimum I getimpatient, and at the maximum I get offended. The fact thatthe other person says, "But I was only trying to help—youmight not have thought of it," does not end up being helpfulor reassuring.
On the other hand, asking temporarily empowers theother person in the conversation and temporarily makes mevulnerable. It implies that the other person knows somethingthat I need to or want to know. It draws the other personinto the situation and into the driver's seat; it enables theother person to help or hurt me and, thereby, opens the doorto building a relationship. If I don't care about communicatingor building a relationship with the other person, thentelling is fine. But if part of the goal of the conversation is to improve communication and build a relationship, then tellingis more risky than asking.
A conversation that leads to a relationship has to besociologically equitable and balanced. If I want to build arelationship, I have to begin by investing something in it.Humble Inquiry is investing by spending some of my attention up front. My question is conveying to the other person,"I am prepared to listen to you and am making myselfvulnerable to you." I will get a return on my investment ifwhat the other person tells me is something that I did notknow before and needed to know. I will then appreciatebeing told something new, and a relationship can begin todevelop through successive cycles of being told something in response to asking.
Trust builds on my end because I have made myselfvulnerable, and the other person has not taken advantageof me nor ignored me. Trust builds on the other person'send because I have shown an interest in and paid attentionto what I have been told. A conversation that builds a trustingrelationship is, therefore, an interactive process in whicheach party invests and gets something of value in return.
All of this occurs within the cultural boundaries ofwhat is considered appropriate good manners and civility.The participants exchange information and attention in successivecycles guided by each of their perceptions of the culturalboundaries of what is appropriate to ask and tell aboutin the given situation.
Why does this not occur routinely? Don't we all knowhow to ask questions? Of course we think we know howto ask, but we fail to notice how often even our questionsare just another form of telling—rhetorical or just testingwhether what we think is right. We are biased toward tellinginstead of asking because we live in a pragmatic, problem-solvingculture in which knowing things and telling otherswhat we know is valued. We also live in a structured societyin which building relationships is not as important as taskaccomplishment, in which it is appropriate and expectedthat the subordinate does more asking than telling, whilethe boss does more telling that asking. Having to ask is a signof weakness or ignorance, so we avoid it as much as possible.
Yet there is growing evidence that many tasks getaccomplished better and more safely if team members andespecially bosses learn to build relationships through theart of Humble Inquiry. This form of asking shows interestin the other person, signals a willingness to listen, and,thereby, temporarily empowers the other person. It impliesa temporary state of dependence on another and, therefore,implies a kind of Here-and-now Humility, which must be distinguishedfrom two other forms of humility.
Three Kinds of Humility
Humility, in the most general sense, refers to granting someoneelse a higher status than one claims for oneself. To behumiliated means to be publicly deprived of one's claimedstatus, to lose face. It is unacceptable in all cultures tohumiliate another person, but the rules for what constituteshumiliation vary among cultures due to differences in howstatus is granted. Therefore, to understand Humble Inquiry,we need to distinguish three kinds of humility based onthree kinds of status:
1) Basic humility—In traditional societies where statusis ascribed by birth or social position, humility is not achoice but a condition. One can accept it or resent it, butone cannot arbitrarily change it. In most cultures the "upperclass" is granted an intrinsic respect based on the status oneis born into. In Western democracies such as the UnitedStates, we are in conflict about how humble to be in frontof someone who has been born into it rather than havingachieved it. But all cultures dictate the minimum amount ofrespect required, or the expected politeness and acknowledgmentthat adults owe each other. We all acknowledgethat as human beings we owe each other some basic respectand should act with some measure of civility.
2) Optional humility—In societies where status isachieved through one's accomplishments, we tend to feelhumble in the presence of people who have clearly achievedmore than we have, and we either admire or envy them.This is optional because we have the choice whether or notto put ourselves in the presence of others who would humbleus with their achievements. We can avoid such feelingsof humility by the company we choose and who we chooseto compare ourselves to, our reference groups. When in thepresence of someone whose achievements we respect, wegenerally know what the expected rules of deference anddemeanor are, but these can vary by occupational culture.How to properly show respect for the Nobel Prize-winningphysicist or the Olympic Gold Medal-winner may requiresome coaching by occupational insiders.
3) Here-and-now Humility—There is a third kind ofhumility that is crucial for the understanding of HumbleInquiry. Here-and-now Humility is how I feel when I amdependent on you. My status is inferior to yours at thismoment because you know something or can do somethingthat I need in order to accomplish some task or goal that Ihave chosen. You have the power to help or hinder me in theachievement of goals that I have chosen and have committedto. I have to be humble because I am temporarily dependenton you. Here I also have a choice. I can either not commit totasks that make me dependent on others, or I can deny thedependency, avoid feeling humble, fail to get what I need,and, thereby, fail to accomplish the task or unwittingly sabotageit. Unfortunately people often would rather fail than toadmit their dependency on someone else.
This kind of humility is easy to see and feel when youare the subordinate, the student, or the patient/client becausethe situation you are in defines relative status. It is less visiblein a team among peers, and it is often totally invisible tothe boss who may assume that the formal power granted bythe position itself will guarantee the performance of the subordinate.The boss may not perceive his or her dependencyon the subordinate, either because of incorrect assumptionsabout the nature of the task that is being performed orbecause of incorrect assumptions about a subordinate's levelof commitment to the particular job. The boss may assumethat if something is in the subordinate's job description, itwill be done, and not notice the many ways in which subordinateswill withhold information or drift off what they havebeen trained for. But, if I am a boss on a seesaw or in a relayrace in which everyone's performance matters to getting thejob done at all, I am de facto dependent on the subordinatewhether I recognize it or not. Getting the seesaw to moveand passing the baton will work only if all the participants,regardless of formal status, recognize their dependence oneach other. It is in that situation where Humble Inquiry by allthe parties becomes most relevant, where the humility is notbased on a priori status gaps or differences in prior achievement,but on recognized here-and-now interdependence.
When you are dependent on someone to get a taskaccomplished, it is essential that you build a relationshipwith that person that will lead to open task-related communication.Consider two possibilities. You are the boss inthe relay race. Telling the person to put out her or his lefthand so that you, who are right-handed, can easily pass thebaton, may or may not lead to effective passing. However, ifyou decide to engage in Humble Inquiry prior to the race,you might ask your teammate's preference for which hand touse. You might then discover that the person has an injuredleft hand that does not work as well, and it would be betterfor you to pass with your left.
Shouldn't the subordinate have mentioned that beforethe race anyway? Not if in that culture for one person tospeak up directly to a person of higher status is taboo. Ifthe baton pass is an instrument a nurse passes to the surgeon,isn't it enough for the surgeon to tell the nurse whatshe needs and expect a correct response? Ordinarily yes,but what if the nurse is temporarily distracted by a beepfrom monitoring equipment or confused because of a possiblelanguage problem or thinks it is the wrong instrument?Should he not speak up and admit that he does not understand,or are the cultural forces in the situation such thathe will guess and maybe make a costly mistake? If, in theculture of that operating room, the doctors are gods and onesimply does not question or confront them, that nurse willnot speak up, even if there is potential harm to the patient.My point is that in both of those examples, the boss and thedoctor are de facto dependent on their subordinates andmust, therefore, recognize their Here-and-now Humility.Failure to do so and failure to engage in Humble Inquiry tobuild a relationship prior to the race or the operation itselfthen leads to poor performance, potential harm, and feelingsof frustration all around.
When such situations occur within a given culturewhere the rules of deference and demeanor are clear, thereis a chance that the parties will understand each other. Butwhen the team members in an interdependent task are moremulticultural, both the language and the set of behavioralrules about how to deal with authority and trust may vary.To make this clear, let's look at a hypothetical multiculturalexample from medicine, keeping in mind that the samecultural forces would operate in a comparable example ofa task force in a business or in a curriculum committee ina school.
THREE KINDS OF HUMILITY—ASURGICAL TEAM EXAMPLE
Consider these three types of humility in the context ofa hypothetical British hospital operating room where acomplex operation is being performed. The surgeon is Dr.Roderick Brown, the son of Lord Brown, who is a respectedsenior surgeon and works with the Royal Family; the anesthesiologistis Dr. Yoshi Tanaka, recently arrived from Japanon a residency fellowship; the surgical nurse is Amy Grant,an American working in the United Kingdom because herhusband has a job there; and the surgical tech is Jack Swift,who is from a lower-class section of London and has gone ashigh as he is likely to go at the hospital.
All the members of the team would feel some basichumility with respect to the surgeon, Dr. Brown, except possiblyAmy, who does not particularly respect the British classstructure. Both Amy and Dr. Tanaka would feel optionalhumility with respect to Dr. Brown because they can see howtalented Brown is with surgical tools. Jack is likely to feelsuch optional humility with respect to all the others in theroom. What none of them may be sufficiently aware of is thatthey are interdependent and will, therefore, have to experienceHere-and-now Humility from time to time with respectto each other.
Dr. Brown, the senior surgeon, may know implicitly,but would not necessarily acknowledge openly, that he isalso dependent on the other three. A situation might wellarise where he needs information or something to be doneby the others in the room who have lower status than he.In the context of the task to be done, situations will arisewhere an occupationally higher-status person temporarilyhas lower status by virtue of being dependent and, therefore,should display Here-and-now Humility to ensure a betterperformance and a safer outcome for the patient.
The higher-status person often denies or glosses thiskind of dependency by rationalizing that "I am, after all,working with professionals." That implies that they are allcompetent, are committed to the superordinate goals ofhealing the patient, and accept their roles and relative statusin the room. It implies that they don't feel humiliatedby having orders barked at them or having help demandedof them. Their "professionalism" also typically assumesthat they will not humiliate the person with higher statusby offering criticism or help unless asked. The burdenthen falls on the higher-status person to ask for help andto create the climate that gives permission for the help tobe given.
Situational Trouble or Surprise. If things work smoothly,there may be no issues around status and open communication.But what if something goes wrong or somethingunexpected occurs? For example, if Dr. Tanaka is about tomake a major mistake on the anesthetics, and the nurse,Amy, notices it, what should she do? Should she speak up?And what are the consequences of her speaking up about it?Being American, she might just blurt it out and risk that Dr.Tanaka would, in fact, be humiliated by being corrected by alower-status nurse, a woman, and an American.
If the corrective comment was made by Dr. Brown,it might be embarrassing, but would have been acceptedbecause the senior person can legitimately correct the juniorperson. Dr. Tanaka might actually appreciate it. Jack mighthave seen the potential error but would not feel licensed tospeak up at all. If Amy or the tech made the mistake, theymight get yelled at and thrown off the team because fromthe point of view of the senior doctor, they could easily bereplaced by someone more competent.
Description:
Communication is essential in a healthy organization. But all too often when we interact with people—especially those who report to us—we simply tell them what we think they need to know. This shuts them down. To generate bold new ideas, to avoid disastrous mistakes, to develop agility and flexibility, we need to practice Humble Inquiry.
Ed Schein defines Humble Inquiry as “the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person.” In this seminal work, Schein contrasts Humble Inquiry with other kinds of inquiry, shows the benefits Humble Inquiry provides in many different settings, and offers advice on overcoming the cultural, organizational, and psychological barriers that keep us from practicing it.
Review
“An invaluable guide for a consultant trying to understand and untangle system and interpersonal knots. Written with a beguiling simplicity and clarity, it is laden with wisdom and practicality.”
—Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Stanford University
“The lessons contained in this deceptively simple book reach beyond the author's experience gained from a lifetime of consultation to organizations of all sizes and shapes. It provides life lessons for us all. If, as a result of reading this book, you begin to practice the art of humble asking, you will have taken an important step toward living wisely.”
—Samuel Jay Keyser, Peter de Florez Professor Emeritus, MIT
“This book seriously challenges leaders to re-examine the emphasis on task orientation and ‘telling' subordinates how best to do their jobs. Humble Inquiry increases organizational capacity to learn more from cross-cultural teamwork, reduces stress, and increases organizational engagement and productivity.”
—Jyotsna Sanzgiri, MBA, PhD, Professor, California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University
“This book is particularly important for leaders who in these complex times need advice and tools for building trust in their relationships with subordinates individually or in teams.”
—Danica Purg, President, IEDC-Bled School of Management, Bled, Slovenia
“This book is an exercise in inquiry by a recognized master of humble insight.”
—Art Kleiner, Editor-in-Chief, Booz & Company/strategy+business
“Ed Schein has provided a new and thoughtful reframing of interpersonal dynamics through the notion of Humble Inquiry. This short book is packed with insights as Schein rigorously explores the impact of his ideas in his usually clear and readable style.”
—Michael Brimm, Professor of Organizational Behavior, INSEAD Europe
“Humble Inquiry is an elegant treatment of how to go about building and sustaining solid, trusting relationships in or out of the workplace. A masterful take on a critical human skill too infrequently practiced.”
—John Van Maanen, Erwin Schell Professor of Management and Professor of Organization Studies, MIT
“A fast read and full of insight! Schein uses stories from his personal life and his successful career as a process consultant that pointedly ask, ‘How willing are you to cast aside hierarchy? How personal are you willing to be?' Considering the cultural, occupational, generational, and gender communication barriers we face every day, Humble Inquiry proposes a very practical, nonthreatening approach to bridging those gaps and increasing the mutual understanding that leads to operational excellence.”
—Rosa Antonia Carrillo, MSOD, safety leadership consultant
“A remarkably valuable guide for anyone interested in leading more effectively and building strong relationships. Ed Schein presents vivid examples grounded in a lifetime of experience as husband, father, teacher, administrator, and consultant.”
—Robert B. McKersie, Professor Emeritus, Sloan School of Management, MIT
“Ed Schein has an eye for bold yet subtle insights into the big picture and a knack for writing about them clearly. Humble Inquiry—like his previous book Helping—shows that he is equally talented at bringing fresh thinking to well-trodden ground.”
—Grady McGonagill, EdD, Principal, McGonagill Consulting
“What did I gain from reading Humble Inquiry? I became more aware of the subtle but powerful ways we affect each other as we talk and how the right kind of questions can dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of communication, with benefits that range from increased patient safety and satisfaction to employee motivation and morale to organizational performance. You can't afford to not know about this.”
—Anthony Suchman, MD, MA, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
“With the world as his classroom, Ed Schein continues to guide us through modern day chaos with the powerful behaviors of Helping and Humble Inquiry. This is a must-read for anyone who truly wishes to achieve important goals!”
—Marjorie M. Godfrey, Codirector, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Microsystem Academy
“I have had the privilege of working with Ed Schein. Reading Humble Inquiry I could hear his voice asking me those humble questions that joined us in a mutual search for the answer. His book distills what he has learned and practiced in a lifetime of helping high-powered leaders be even more successful.”
—Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman, CEO and President, PG&E Corporation
“Schein helps us understand the importance of transcending hierarchy and authority to build authentic relationships predicated on trust and respect. Humble iInquiry is a powerful approach to building safe environments for our people and, ultimately, our patients.”
—Gary S. Kaplan MD, Chairman and CEO, Virginia Mason Health System
“Quiet wisdom from an expert, enlivened by personal examples. Insightful and easy to read, it made me look again at my own behavior in my relationships, both at work and in the home.”
—Charles Handy
About the Author
Edgar H. Schein is the Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Management Emeritus at the MIT Sloan School of Management. His previous books include Helping; Process Consultation Revisited; The Corporate Culture Survival Guide; DEC Is Dead, Long Live DEC; Organizational Culture and Leadership; and Career Anchors.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Humble Inquiry
The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling
By EDGAR H. SCHEIN
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Copyright © 2013 Edgar H. Schein
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-60994-981-5
Contents
Introduction: Creating Positive Relationships and Effective Organizations..11 Humble Inquiry...........................................................72 Humble Inquiry in Practice—Case Examples.................................213 Differentiating Humble Inquiry from Other Kinds of Inquiry...............394 The Culture of Do and Tell...............................................535 Status, Rank, and Role Boundaries as Inhibitors..........................696 Forces Inside Us as Inhibitors...........................................837 Developing the Attitude of Humble Inquiry................................99Notes......................................................................111Acknowledgments............................................................113Index......................................................................115About the Author...........................................................119Author Awards..............................................................123
CHAPTER 1
Humble Inquiry
When conversations go wrong, when our bestadvice is ignored, when we get upset with the advice thatothers give us, when our subordinates fail to tell us thingsthat would improve matters or avoid pitfalls, when discussionsturn into arguments that end in stalemates and hurtfeelings—what went wrong and what could have been doneto get better outcomes?
A vivid example came from one of my executive studentsin the MIT Sloan Program who was studying for hisimportant finance exam in his basement study. He hadexplicitly instructed his six-year-old daughter not to interrupthim. He was deep into his work when a knock on thedoor announced the arrival of his daughter. He said sharply,"I thought I told you not to interrupt me." The little girl burstinto tears and ran off. The next morning his wife beratedhim for upsetting the daughter. He defended himself vigorouslyuntil his wife interrupted and said, "I sent her downto you to say goodnight and ask you if you wanted a cup ofcoffee to help with your studying. Why did you yell at herinstead of asking her why she was there?"
How can we do better? The answer is simple, but itsimplementation is not. We would have to do three things:1) do less telling; 2) learn to do more asking in the particularform of Humble Inquiry; and 3) do a better job of listeningand acknowledging. Talking and listening have receivedenormous attention via hundreds of books on communication.But the social art of asking a question has beenstrangely neglected.
Yet what we ask and the particular form in which weask it—what I describe as Humble Inquiry—is ultimately thebasis for building trusting relationships, which facilitatesbetter communication and, thereby, ensures collaborationwhere it is needed to get the job done.
Some tasks can be accomplished by each person doinghis or her own thing. If that is the case, building relationshipsand improving communication may not matter. In theteam sports of basketball, soccer, and hockey, teamwork is desirable but not essential. But when all the parties have todo the right thing—when there is complete, simultaneousinterdependence, as in a seesaw or a relay race—then goodrelationships and open communication become essential .
How Does Asking Build Relationships?
We all live in a culture of Tell and find it difficult to ask, especiallyto ask in a humble way. What is so wrong with telling?The short answer is a sociological one. Telling puts theother person down. It implies that the other person does notalready know what I am telling and that the other personought to know it. Often when I am told something that I didnot ask about, I find that I already know that and wonderwhy the person assumes that I don't. When I am told thingsthat I already know or have thought of, at the minimum I getimpatient, and at the maximum I get offended. The fact thatthe other person says, "But I was only trying to help—youmight not have thought of it," does not end up being helpfulor reassuring.
On the other hand, asking temporarily empowers theother person in the conversation and temporarily makes mevulnerable. It implies that the other person knows somethingthat I need to or want to know. It draws the other personinto the situation and into the driver's seat; it enables theother person to help or hurt me and, thereby, opens the doorto building a relationship. If I don't care about communicatingor building a relationship with the other person, thentelling is fine. But if part of the goal of the conversation is to improve communication and build a relationship, then tellingis more risky than asking.
A conversation that leads to a relationship has to besociologically equitable and balanced. If I want to build arelationship, I have to begin by investing something in it.Humble Inquiry is investing by spending some of my attention up front. My question is conveying to the other person,"I am prepared to listen to you and am making myselfvulnerable to you." I will get a return on my investment ifwhat the other person tells me is something that I did notknow before and needed to know. I will then appreciatebeing told something new, and a relationship can begin todevelop through successive cycles of being told something in response to asking.
Trust builds on my end because I have made myselfvulnerable, and the other person has not taken advantageof me nor ignored me. Trust builds on the other person'send because I have shown an interest in and paid attentionto what I have been told. A conversation that builds a trustingrelationship is, therefore, an interactive process in whicheach party invests and gets something of value in return.
All of this occurs within the cultural boundaries ofwhat is considered appropriate good manners and civility.The participants exchange information and attention in successivecycles guided by each of their perceptions of the culturalboundaries of what is appropriate to ask and tell aboutin the given situation.
Why does this not occur routinely? Don't we all knowhow to ask questions? Of course we think we know howto ask, but we fail to notice how often even our questionsare just another form of telling—rhetorical or just testingwhether what we think is right. We are biased toward tellinginstead of asking because we live in a pragmatic, problem-solvingculture in which knowing things and telling otherswhat we know is valued. We also live in a structured societyin which building relationships is not as important as taskaccomplishment, in which it is appropriate and expectedthat the subordinate does more asking than telling, whilethe boss does more telling that asking. Having to ask is a signof weakness or ignorance, so we avoid it as much as possible.
Yet there is growing evidence that many tasks getaccomplished better and more safely if team members andespecially bosses learn to build relationships through theart of Humble Inquiry. This form of asking shows interestin the other person, signals a willingness to listen, and,thereby, temporarily empowers the other person. It impliesa temporary state of dependence on another and, therefore,implies a kind of Here-and-now Humility, which must be distinguishedfrom two other forms of humility.
Three Kinds of Humility
Humility, in the most general sense, refers to granting someoneelse a higher status than one claims for oneself. To behumiliated means to be publicly deprived of one's claimedstatus, to lose face. It is unacceptable in all cultures tohumiliate another person, but the rules for what constituteshumiliation vary among cultures due to differences in howstatus is granted. Therefore, to understand Humble Inquiry,we need to distinguish three kinds of humility based onthree kinds of status:
1) Basic humility—In traditional societies where statusis ascribed by birth or social position, humility is not achoice but a condition. One can accept it or resent it, butone cannot arbitrarily change it. In most cultures the "upperclass" is granted an intrinsic respect based on the status oneis born into. In Western democracies such as the UnitedStates, we are in conflict about how humble to be in frontof someone who has been born into it rather than havingachieved it. But all cultures dictate the minimum amount ofrespect required, or the expected politeness and acknowledgmentthat adults owe each other. We all acknowledgethat as human beings we owe each other some basic respectand should act with some measure of civility.
2) Optional humility—In societies where status isachieved through one's accomplishments, we tend to feelhumble in the presence of people who have clearly achievedmore than we have, and we either admire or envy them.This is optional because we have the choice whether or notto put ourselves in the presence of others who would humbleus with their achievements. We can avoid such feelingsof humility by the company we choose and who we chooseto compare ourselves to, our reference groups. When in thepresence of someone whose achievements we respect, wegenerally know what the expected rules of deference anddemeanor are, but these can vary by occupational culture.How to properly show respect for the Nobel Prize-winningphysicist or the Olympic Gold Medal-winner may requiresome coaching by occupational insiders.
3) Here-and-now Humility—There is a third kind ofhumility that is crucial for the understanding of HumbleInquiry. Here-and-now Humility is how I feel when I amdependent on you. My status is inferior to yours at thismoment because you know something or can do somethingthat I need in order to accomplish some task or goal that Ihave chosen. You have the power to help or hinder me in theachievement of goals that I have chosen and have committedto. I have to be humble because I am temporarily dependenton you. Here I also have a choice. I can either not commit totasks that make me dependent on others, or I can deny thedependency, avoid feeling humble, fail to get what I need,and, thereby, fail to accomplish the task or unwittingly sabotageit. Unfortunately people often would rather fail than toadmit their dependency on someone else.
This kind of humility is easy to see and feel when youare the subordinate, the student, or the patient/client becausethe situation you are in defines relative status. It is less visiblein a team among peers, and it is often totally invisible tothe boss who may assume that the formal power granted bythe position itself will guarantee the performance of the subordinate.The boss may not perceive his or her dependencyon the subordinate, either because of incorrect assumptionsabout the nature of the task that is being performed orbecause of incorrect assumptions about a subordinate's levelof commitment to the particular job. The boss may assumethat if something is in the subordinate's job description, itwill be done, and not notice the many ways in which subordinateswill withhold information or drift off what they havebeen trained for. But, if I am a boss on a seesaw or in a relayrace in which everyone's performance matters to getting thejob done at all, I am de facto dependent on the subordinatewhether I recognize it or not. Getting the seesaw to moveand passing the baton will work only if all the participants,regardless of formal status, recognize their dependence oneach other. It is in that situation where Humble Inquiry by allthe parties becomes most relevant, where the humility is notbased on a priori status gaps or differences in prior achievement,but on recognized here-and-now interdependence.
When you are dependent on someone to get a taskaccomplished, it is essential that you build a relationshipwith that person that will lead to open task-related communication.Consider two possibilities. You are the boss inthe relay race. Telling the person to put out her or his lefthand so that you, who are right-handed, can easily pass thebaton, may or may not lead to effective passing. However, ifyou decide to engage in Humble Inquiry prior to the race,you might ask your teammate's preference for which hand touse. You might then discover that the person has an injuredleft hand that does not work as well, and it would be betterfor you to pass with your left.
Shouldn't the subordinate have mentioned that beforethe race anyway? Not if in that culture for one person tospeak up directly to a person of higher status is taboo. Ifthe baton pass is an instrument a nurse passes to the surgeon,isn't it enough for the surgeon to tell the nurse whatshe needs and expect a correct response? Ordinarily yes,but what if the nurse is temporarily distracted by a beepfrom monitoring equipment or confused because of a possiblelanguage problem or thinks it is the wrong instrument?Should he not speak up and admit that he does not understand,or are the cultural forces in the situation such thathe will guess and maybe make a costly mistake? If, in theculture of that operating room, the doctors are gods and onesimply does not question or confront them, that nurse willnot speak up, even if there is potential harm to the patient.My point is that in both of those examples, the boss and thedoctor are de facto dependent on their subordinates andmust, therefore, recognize their Here-and-now Humility.Failure to do so and failure to engage in Humble Inquiry tobuild a relationship prior to the race or the operation itselfthen leads to poor performance, potential harm, and feelingsof frustration all around.
When such situations occur within a given culturewhere the rules of deference and demeanor are clear, thereis a chance that the parties will understand each other. Butwhen the team members in an interdependent task are moremulticultural, both the language and the set of behavioralrules about how to deal with authority and trust may vary.To make this clear, let's look at a hypothetical multiculturalexample from medicine, keeping in mind that the samecultural forces would operate in a comparable example ofa task force in a business or in a curriculum committee ina school.
THREE KINDS OF HUMILITY—ASURGICAL TEAM EXAMPLE
Consider these three types of humility in the context ofa hypothetical British hospital operating room where acomplex operation is being performed. The surgeon is Dr.Roderick Brown, the son of Lord Brown, who is a respectedsenior surgeon and works with the Royal Family; the anesthesiologistis Dr. Yoshi Tanaka, recently arrived from Japanon a residency fellowship; the surgical nurse is Amy Grant,an American working in the United Kingdom because herhusband has a job there; and the surgical tech is Jack Swift,who is from a lower-class section of London and has gone ashigh as he is likely to go at the hospital.
All the members of the team would feel some basichumility with respect to the surgeon, Dr. Brown, except possiblyAmy, who does not particularly respect the British classstructure. Both Amy and Dr. Tanaka would feel optionalhumility with respect to Dr. Brown because they can see howtalented Brown is with surgical tools. Jack is likely to feelsuch optional humility with respect to all the others in theroom. What none of them may be sufficiently aware of is thatthey are interdependent and will, therefore, have to experienceHere-and-now Humility from time to time with respectto each other.
Dr. Brown, the senior surgeon, may know implicitly,but would not necessarily acknowledge openly, that he isalso dependent on the other three. A situation might wellarise where he needs information or something to be doneby the others in the room who have lower status than he.In the context of the task to be done, situations will arisewhere an occupationally higher-status person temporarilyhas lower status by virtue of being dependent and, therefore,should display Here-and-now Humility to ensure a betterperformance and a safer outcome for the patient.
The higher-status person often denies or glosses thiskind of dependency by rationalizing that "I am, after all,working with professionals." That implies that they are allcompetent, are committed to the superordinate goals ofhealing the patient, and accept their roles and relative statusin the room. It implies that they don't feel humiliatedby having orders barked at them or having help demandedof them. Their "professionalism" also typically assumesthat they will not humiliate the person with higher statusby offering criticism or help unless asked. The burdenthen falls on the higher-status person to ask for help andto create the climate that gives permission for the help tobe given.
Situational Trouble or Surprise. If things work smoothly,there may be no issues around status and open communication.But what if something goes wrong or somethingunexpected occurs? For example, if Dr. Tanaka is about tomake a major mistake on the anesthetics, and the nurse,Amy, notices it, what should she do? Should she speak up?And what are the consequences of her speaking up about it?Being American, she might just blurt it out and risk that Dr.Tanaka would, in fact, be humiliated by being corrected by alower-status nurse, a woman, and an American.
If the corrective comment was made by Dr. Brown,it might be embarrassing, but would have been acceptedbecause the senior person can legitimately correct the juniorperson. Dr. Tanaka might actually appreciate it. Jack mighthave seen the potential error but would not feel licensed tospeak up at all. If Amy or the tech made the mistake, theymight get yelled at and thrown off the team because fromthe point of view of the senior doctor, they could easily bereplaced by someone more competent.
What if Dr. Brown was about to make a mistake, wouldanyone tell him? Dr. Tanaka has learned in his culture thatone never corrects a superior. This might go so far as to coverup for a surgeon's mistake in order to protect the face of thesuperior and the profession. Amy would experience conflictand might or might not speak up depending on how psychologicallysafe she felt in the situation. That might be based psychologicallysafe she felt in the situation. That might be basedon what kind of history of communication and relationshipshe had with Dr. Brown and other male surgeons in her pastcareer. She might not know whether Dr. Brown would behumiliated by having a nurse offer a corrective comment orquestion. And humiliation must be avoided in most cultures,so it would be difficult for her to speak up unless she and Dr.Brown had built a relationship in which she felt safe to do so.
(Continues...)Excerpted from Humble Inquiry by EDGAR H. SCHEIN. Copyright © 2013 Edgar H. Schein. Excerpted by permission of Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.