Uncomfortable Questions - Part 1
A holding slide with the words “Uncomfortable Questions” in a stylized font.
Many experts will share that good Governance takes the form of asking questions. If you were to create a list of relevant qualifiers for questions, positive attributes would include: good, timely, interesting, helpful, logical, etc. The less-glowing reviews would list, “uncomfortable,” among others. Let’s also acknowledge that in addition to “importance” of the question, its “timing” is also vital. What would have been an important question six months ago (before we agreed to pursue the current path) is not a helpful question now when we are into the implementation (i.e. probing about gate closure responsibilities once horses have vacated the barn).
The Governance problem that emerges from “uncomfortable questions” is that that the discomfort can result in an important question remaining unasked. The bold or unaware Director who asks an uncomfortable question may receive a response that (subtlety or not) reads, “Don’t do that again!” This can be a particularly challenging area for new Board Members to navigate because there can be a very nuanced difference between addressing the elephant in the room and (re)launching a circular discussion that holds no promise for additional insight.
Important Questions Take Different Forms:
Here are some broad categories of questions:
High-level questions that boarder on the EXISTENTIAL are important until we arrive at a “good enough” understanding that everyone can support… even if that support is contingent on being proven wrong during or after the implementation timeframe.
Strategic TRADE-OFF questions are important as long as the situation does call for a “this or that” decision. Too often, the “false choice” becomes a tool of choice for persuasive communications. (i.e. Board Member #1 - Well we can’t do A and B! ; Board Member #2 - Hold on. Are you sure? Maybe you are right, but can we at least talk about it?)
Questions about how best to SOLVE PROBLEMS are great when we are all clear on both the objective and the constraints that are in place. Those with contextual or operational expertise can be very valuable in explaining fixed parameters within which we must work. They can tell you if, “Something has to give,” and explain the nature and implications of that “something.” Constraints can be clearly defined (e.g. our policies must have this clause) or require judgement (e.g. at what point is the workload too much for our staff/volunteers). If this conversation reveals that the problem is not solvable, there is a natural shift to a TRADE-OFF question.
Note: Well-intended Board members can be tempted to probe OPERATIONAL areas such as who is doing what and whether or not they are being effective. This level of accountability is directly pertinent and important to Executive Leadership, but not to the Governance perspective. Probing these areas risks harming the dynamic between the Board and the Executive Leader.
Bad Question or Poorly Timed?
Only one of the above question categories (SOLVE PROBLEMS) brings the comfort of a clear answer. Cappfinity’s Strength Discovery instrument draws a distinction between CREATIVITY and INNOVATION. The former is working with existing materials in new ways; the latter creates a brand-new context with different resources and constraints. Questions geared at driving INNOVATION may not be welcome when we have finally agreed on a specific PROBLEM to SOLVE.
TRADE-OFF and EXISTENTIAL questions bring ambiguity, where an initial antidote to any discomfort is permission to say, “I don’t know” or “We can’t know for sure.” In situations with less ambiguity, questions elicit information and surface the priorities behind decisions. With higher degrees of uncertainty, these questions serve to stimulate thinking. Meeting agendas can explicitly earmark areas as “For Discussion,” which could translate as “Group Thinking, Out Loud and Deliberately Without Deciding.” This acts as a welcome mat for questions that under other circumstances could be uncomfortable.
Managing Discussions
Whether through training or experience (or both), those who have developed facilitation skills will use questions to bring people “up” to better see the problem or “down” to get more specific. At some point, you have to stop going up and bring the conversation down. We can be tempted to come down quickly (and maybe stay down too long) in service too:
Avoiding discomfort (and embarrassment)
Time efficiency (and not wasting time)
Increased focus (and keeping people’s attention)
The Boards role is to ask questions, but the collective task is to manage the discussion to allow us to manage the difficult task of making a positive impact on an area that deserves focus, attention and resources.