#MiPDV – The Value Of The Naïve Question
One day I was speaking with an executive about solving problems. This executive said that they preferred to have small groups of 5-6 people working on a problem versus an individual or a large team.
Intuitively, the comment made sense – a small group of experts can generally move more nimbly than a large group, and having multiple experts meant that the best minds were working on the problem.
Then the executive added that they would like to have some non-experts in the group.
The reason?
The executive called it “the value of the naïve question”.
Their belief was that when the group includes 1 or 2 people who are not familiar with the problem being solved – and willing to ask questions of the experts – that the basic questions help to avoid the experts using assumptions that could ultimately hinder their work or prevent possible solutions from being considered.
The discussion reminded me of a former boss, who was a master at asking basic questions to test your assumptions and hypotheses. She had a way of phrasing her questions – such as, “You’re the expert but I was wondering …” or, “I am not following you – could you go over that one more time?”, or “What does that mean?” – that forced you to reexamine your thinking and assumptions.
It was her way of asking the “five whys” or the “why not” question.
Working for her was one of the best experiences I had in my career because she taught me not to assume.
I kept reflecting on this conversation with the executive – while the idea made sense, is there proof of it in practice?
While I couldn’t find research that directly addresses the value of the naïve question, there are some interesting findings.
A 2017 study refers to a 1993 study that found that to create complex representations (e.g., to solve complex problems), it is important to explore a wide variety of facts and knowledge, and to be able to draw conclusions from the facts and knowledge. The studies found that minority dissent – the questions from the non-experts – is a driving force for widening the aperture of facts and knowledge considered. The study says, “divergent views expressed by minorities trigger cognitive conflict and stimulate divergent thinking”.
The complete 2017 study, which includes a link to the 1993 study, is at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5368259/
Recommended by LinkedIn
A 2010 study found that a “naïve group” could be better than experts at solving some problems. The “hidden-profile problem”, where the group is asked to select one of several alternatives, is where the naïve group excels.
Why?
Basically, the study found that experts tend to have information and form opinions about the task before the group gets together. Normally, the experts don’t share their information with others in the group. Those without expertise tend to share more freely because they lack expertise and are trying to solve the problem.
The study authors found that to be surprising, but then state, “it is important to see that exchanging and using unshared information might not be a goal in and of itself but rather a function of the strategies that are used by decision-making groups.”
You can read the full study at https://www.academia.edu/2839025/Na%C3%AFve_Groups_Can_Solve_the_Hidden_Profile_Problem
The studies show that shows that the lack of entrenched assumptions – a more “naive” perspective – can yield better performance on complex integrative tasks.
That’s why the naïve question becomes important – it exposes these assumptions and helps us to reevaluate them.
And now I understand why that former boss was so brilliant – she was unafraid to challenge assumptions but did so by asking the naïve question. She knew that a direct challenge would be far less productive.
And the other executive is equally brilliant for building problem-solving teams that deliberately lack an expert or two.
So for all of us as leaders, let’s encourage our team members to challenge assumptions with the naïve question. You never know what brilliant results will come from it.
That’s mi punto de vista #MiPDV.
A former boss was the first person I came across who said, in a meeting(s), that he’d reached the age where anything he didnt understand fully he would ask about - always very pleasantly - as he was never again going to leave a room in doubt about what was meant. So he asked. Preparation, better planning, better thinking and clearer explanations/presentations followed - as we all raised our game. Possibly an approach he learnt in military training ?
John Harrison Any kind of why questions (and it doesnt need to have the word why in it) questions are powerful .... cause they uncover motivations and root causes