REFRAMING-WHAT IS IT?

The purpose of reframing is to have the client see the need from a different point of view. You do this by asking powerful questions about the results the client seeks; you do not ask questions about the client’s solution at this time. Consider the following request: “I have two teams who are in continual conflict. I would like to offer some type of team building.” Although this client has identified a team-building solution, the client likely seeks results that go beyond delivery of a team-building activity. Resolving team conflict would be one possible result, but there could also be a business result that is driving this request. In a reframing discussion, you do not focus on the solution (team-building activity). Instead, focus on the desired performance accomplishments (resolving team conflict), as well as business outcomes that are connected to that performance. Through the use of the Gaps logic and skillful questioning, you broaden the discussion and reframe the need. Frequently, this conversation results in client awareness that some information is lacking and must be obtained if appropriate solutions are to be determined. Moving ahead without this information would be jumping to a solution with all the potential landmines and problems inherent in that approach. By reframing the request, you increase the probability that the client will want your help in obtaining the missing information. In this way, you have also reframed your role from one that is tactical (solution provider) to one that is strategic (helping determine what is needed). Your goal in a reframing discussion is not to solve the problem; rather, your goal is to work with the client to determine what the problem is.

We introduced you to the Need Hierarchy in Chapter 2. This hierarchy illustrates the interrelationship of business, performance, organizational, and individual capability needs. As we have indicated previously, your goal as a performance consultant is to help clients define and align these four needs. When the client requests a solution that focuses on enhancing individual and/or organizational capability, you are brought into the center box of the Need Hierarchy. As Figure 4.1 illustrates, when you reframe a request, you are moving from the inner box outward. To successfully reframe requests, you will use two techniques:

Ask powerful questions.

Use a compelling logic when asking questions.

Ask Powerful Questions

In discussing the art of questioning, we are reminded of the time we were interviewing an executive about the support he received from his HR partner. This executive made the following statement: “This individual asks, and then helps us to answer, questions we did not even know we had.” In other words, the HR partner was valued for the questions he raised as much as for the work done to support obtaining the answers. We are convinced that as a performance consultant, you raise more insights and have greater influence because of what you ask rather than what you tell. There are three categories of questions performance consultants use that draw on the logic contained in the Performance Consulting Process:

SHOULD questions identify both the business and performance SHOULDs or desired state. Business SHOULDs are described numerically (e.g., “We need to increase sales by 500 units”), while performance SHOULDs are defined behaviorally (“Sales reps must ask probing questions to determine the customer’s real need”).

IS questions identify what currently exists as compared to the SHOULDs. Business IS information describes current results in quantifiable terms (“Our sales are currently showing an increase rate of 300 units”), whereas IS performance defines the current behavior of specific employee groups (“Currently, sales representatives are not asking probing questions”).

CAUSE questions focus on the three categories of root causes for the current situation: causes external to the organization, within the organization, and within individuals. CAUSE questions can also identify factors that might hinder future performance once a new initiative is under way. CAUSE questions seek reasons for gaps in business results (“What factors are making it difficult for you to achieve your sales goal?”), as well as causes for performance gaps (“Why do you think more sales reps are not asking the probing questions needed to uncover the true needs of a customer?”).

Asking SHOULD, IS, and CAUSE questions provides you with the content that is known about a situation. These questions also uncover what is unknown but needed and, if appropriate, the next steps required to obtain that information. Four techniques are key to asking powerful questions; your questions need to be open-ended, cause-neutral, solution-neutral, and focused. Let’s discuss each of these techniques in more detail.

Open-Ended

These are questions that cannot be answered with a yes or no response; each question requires a more complete narrative response. Consider the difference in these two SHOULD questions:

Are your sales representatives identifying customer needs in their initial discussions?

What do you need your sales representatives to do more, better, or differently in initial discussions with customers?

Each of these questions is designed to learn more about what sales reps should do when in customer discussions. However, it is the second question that yields the best information; in fact, there will likely be follow-up questions once the response is received that will deepen understanding of what the client is seeking in terms of performance results.

Cause-Neutral

Avoid asking questions that suggest possible barriers for the problem. Your goal is facilitate a discovery process with the client, working together to determine what is known, and unknown, about the situation. Again, let’s consider two alternative questions:

To what degree do managers have sufficient data to make the decisions you believe they need to make?

Why do you think managers are challenged to make the types of decisions you have described?

The second question is neutral in construct, providing the client with an opportunity to indicate what he or she knows regarding possible barriers. It is also possible the client will acknowledge being uncertain of the causes for the lack of decision making. This response provides you with a perfect opportunity to suggest the value in determining the answer to that question before proceeding with solutions.

Solution-Neutral

Just as we want to avoid suggesting causes for the situation, we also want to steer clear of questions that propose or even assume possible solutions to implement. Solution selection would be premature in this initial discussion. Which of the following questions, in your opinion, is the most powerful and neutral?

What do you want supervisors to do differently on the job after attending this workshop?

What do you want supervisors to do differently on the job?

Clearly the first question assumes there will be some type of training solution; the second question makes no such assumption.

Focused

Each question you ask needs to focus on one specific element within the Gaps Map. When we ask broad questions, we usually obtain a response that is vague and based more on opinion than fact. By asking focused questions, we get more specific responses from the client, and the probability of an “I’m not sure” response increases. An “I don’t know response” provides an opportunity to ask if it would be beneficial to obtain that information before moving ahead with solutions. Again, two examples:

What’s going on?

What actions do technicians typically take when the process is outside specifications?

The second question is designed to determine specific information about the current state of performance—a performance IS question. With the first question, we can obtain almost any response, including one that yields limited insight into the problem. Figure 4.2 provides a starter list of generic questions to help reframe discussions.

Ask Questions Using a Compelling Logic

Asking powerful questions is an important but insufficient technique by itself. You need to ask questions using a compelling logic path. What do we mean by “compelling logic”? We mean that you begin the questioning process by starting with the client’s mindset, and then guide the discussion in a logical manner so it discusses all elements contained in a Gaps Map.

Imagine this scenario between the manager of customer service and her performance consultant:

Manager: I want to discuss some training needs of my new employees.

Performance consultant: I look forward to our discussion. I’d like to begin by learning more about your business goals. What operational goals do you have for this year?

Your thoughts in response to this hypothetical conversation are likely along the lines of “Huh?” There is no connection—no logic—between the request of the manager and the response of the performance consultant.

The first principle of using a compelling logic is to begin your questioning process by starting at the highest-level need, in the Need Hierarchy, that was provided by the client. In essence, your conversation starts with the client’s mindset, not yours. In the scenario just provided, here is a more appropriate response by the performance consultant:

I look forward to discussing this need with you. What have you observed your new employees doing, or not doing, that leads you to the conclusion they would benefit from some training?

This is a performance IS question that launches the discussion. Once the current performance has been discussed, we move on to discuss performance SHOULD. What is the client wanting her new employees to do more, better, or differently? From there we would like to learn what are the CAUSES of the current performance. In this way we have begun with the client’s mindset but have navigated the discussion away from a solution and on to a more robust conversation about the employees’ performance.

We also want to discuss the client’s business goals, as they relate to this group of employees. So a logic path now has us transition to the other side of the Gaps Map with a question such as “If your employees were operating in the manner you just described, what would be the impact on the business results for this group?” With this business SHOULD question, you have now moved into a business discussion. Once the SHOULD information is obtained, we can easily transition to a business IS question (“What are the current results compared to those goals?”) and CAUSE (“What are some reasons for the gap you have described between desired business results and what is actually occurring?”). The logic path that has just been illustrated is displayed in Figure 4.3; the numbers in the figure indicate the order in which the questions are asked.

But what if the need includes a business goal or gap? For example, consider this request from a client:

We are experiencing an increase in preventable accidents and incidents. Safety is a primary goal for our manufacturing organization. I think we need a refresher course on safety for my operators. I also want to institute some type of competition between shifts with a reward going to the shift with the best safety record over the next three months.

The client has indicated that safety results are a problem (business need) and is seeking your help in implementing two solutions (refresher training and some type of reward system). The business need is the highest-level need presented, so you begin the conversation by focusing on the business side of the map, obtaining as much information as possible. Questions such as “What are the safety goals for the manufacturing organization?” and “How are we currently tracking against each of these goals?” are examples of questions that yield operational information. When you have uncovered a gap between SHOULD and IS on the business side, ask a CAUSE question such as “Tell me more about the reasons that safety results are declining.” Once you have obtained sufficient information for the business side of the map, transition to the performance side and continue the discussion. A good transition statement might be “Clearly the operators are key to improving safety results. What is it they need to do more, better, or differently if the safety goals are to be achieved?” Figure 4.4 illustrates the logic path used when you enter the Gaps Map on the business side.