In Part 1, we posed the problem of providing help to clients in such a way that they actually find it helpful, so that they act on the advice given. To do so requires that we establish a climate of equal status between the salesperson and the client, generate a sufficient level of trust, and ensure that the client takes ownership of the solution. That, in turn, requires a questioning process called humble inquiry, which Schein elaborates on in his book, Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling (BK Business)
As Schein defines it, “Humble inquiry is the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not already know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person.”
How does this differ from the typical form of questioning used in sales? First, let’s assume that the salesperson actually asks questions and listens to the answers, which is definitely not a given.
Assuming that the salesperson goes so far as to ask questions, the typical approach is to ask a few qualifying questions up front, identify problems/opportunities that fit with their advantages, possibly diagnose why the problems exist, and then provide insights in the form of solutions. Or, they can work through a specific methodology such as SPIN. There are two common threads in all these questioning approaches: first, the salesperson asks them with a specific goal in mind, and, second, it’s important to keep control of the conversation.
That’s why salespeople are often told not to ask a questions to which they already know the answer, as if they are cross-examiners in a criminal trial. In this way, they can keep control of the direction of the conversation, which puts them in a “one-up” position.
But what if being in control interferes with a trusting climate, or prevents the client from saying something that may actually shed better light on the situation? In that case, the salesperson may solve the wrong problem, or solve the right problem before the client is ready to act on the solution.
Notice the stark difference between directed questioning approaches and humble inquiry, which requires that the questioner “access their ignorance” and sincerely ask the most open-ended of questions, those which may totally surprise them with the answers given.
Humble inquiry begins with open inquiry, which is simply gaining a sufficient understanding of the client’s situation, without an agenda. Your goal here is to ask and listen, without judging or formulating responses. This is important for two reasons. First, being too highly focused on what you want to find out can easily obscure important information which may be necessary to uncover and solve the real problem at hand. Second, it impairs the development of trust, because the client senses your agenda and is on guard for the other shoe to drop.
How to use humble inquiry in sales conversations
Schein does not address sales situations specifically, so the rest of this article represents my own thinking on how humble inquiry can be used during a sales conversation.
First, should you even use it? If so, when is it appropriate, and how should it be used?
Your ultimate goal is to make a sale, so why not proceed directly on the path that will take you there, instead of wasting time in aimless conversation? It seems like poor use of the precious time you actually have with them. The second concern is that no salesperson likes to lose control of the conversation, and it’s easy to think that listening without an agenda is a form of unilateral disarmament which will lessen your chances of making a sale.
The answer to the first concern is that except for automated computer trading algorithms, no purchasing decision is based entirely on 100% logical, quantifiable reasoning. The person sitting across from you is a real human being with real – and unique – human needs, feelings, quirks, and aspirations, and they like to feel important and valued. One of the best ways they do is to have others actually take an interest in them. That good feeling may make a difference in the immediate sale, and be a basis for a fruitful long-term relationship.
As to losing control, that could happen if humble inquiry were the only tool you had to bring to the conversation. But, just because you start with it does not mean that you can’t switch to your other questioning approaches at the appropriate moment – in fact you will have to switch at some point. When you feel the discussion has arrived at the right point, you can phase into your diagnostic and expert roles.
Another approach is to listen carefully to the client and then use what Schein calls “constructive opportunism”, which is your ability to recognize conversational openings that you can jump into, to explore something further, or probe to uncover additional needs. Based on your expert knowledge of how your product or service addresses typical customer needs, you will probably hear plenty of keywords that indicate POCR: problems, opportunities, changes and risks. The benefits of this are that it’s less disruptive to the natural flow of the conversation, and the issues that emerge are the client’s own ideas.
Keep in mind that if you decide to try humble inquiry in your sales conversations, it will not be easy, as I’ve been discovering. You will have to overcome habit, culture and human nature. Our sales habits lead us to pounce on perceived needs; our culture values doing and telling; and our natural human instinct is to claim higher status that comes from showing how smart we are. But if you can persevere through the difficulties, you stand a better chance of providing help that is truly helpful, and isn’t that worth the effort?
[1] Part 1 was based on Schein’s first book, Helping. That book also explains the humble inquiry approach. Unless you really want to dig deeply in to the topic, you don’t have to read both books. I would recommend Helping if you only want to read one.
Knows one thing very well
If you want to develop maximum credibility, is it better to be a hedgehog or a fox?
I’m referring to the terms that Isaiah Berlin used in an essay classifying thinkers as either hedgehogs or foxes. According to parable the hedgehog knows one thing very well, and the fox knows a lot of things.
Is there a clear advantage of one style over the other? A hedgehog thinker would answer yes; he would come down squarely on one side or the other and support his position to the hilt. And he would be very credible in doing so.
For developing credibility, there is a lot to be said for being a hedgehog. By concentrating on one area, you can focus your learning and develop deep expertise which can differentiate you from others and establish your reputation. According to Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, the “hedgehog concept” was one of the factors that helped that companies make the leap to greatness. They focused on one thing and did it really well. Because they figured out what they could be good at, they had the advantage of clarity, focus, and confidence.
When applied to individual success, the hedgehog concept makes perfect sense because it ties neatly into the popular idea that when you can find something you are passionate about, you will succeed because you will pour your heart and soul into it. That level of concentration can get you to the point where you know more than anyone else, and you will have rock-solid credibility in your field[1]. And, with knowledge accumulating so rapidly in so many fields, that concentration will keep you abreast of the state of the art. You would probably not want to go to a doctor who stops reading medical journals so he can broaden his mind in other areas.
Hedgehogs also have an advantage when it comes to persuasion: they are listened to more and are more believable when they speak, because of their confidence and conviction. In fact, I would propose that the most successful bloggers are definitely hedgehogs, and most best-selling business books are written by hedgehogs. When readers and listeners are suffering from ever-shrinking attention spans, no one has time to explore the shades of grey between black and white. Very few people nowadays have patience for nuanced arguments; we prefer to be like Harry Truman, who complained that he wanted to meet a one-armed economist, so that he would never have to hear him say, “on the other hand…”
But could there be a downside to single-minded concentration on one big thing? Philip Tetlock thinks so. Tetlock studied the track records of political commentators over 15 years, those folks you see on the Sunday talk shows who get paid to make predictions about what will happen during political crises and trends. He found that hedgehogs were not only wrong more often than foxes, but that they were less likely to recognize or admit that they were wrong when events did not match their predictions[2].
The advantage that foxes have is that they are more likely to seek out new information from a broader range of sources, and are comfortable with uncertainty and new information. When something happens that contradicts their view of the world, they treat it as new information, not as an aberration or an exception. They try to incorporate it into a more nuanced viewpoint rather than finding reasons to exclude it from their thinking. They are also better calibrated, meaning that they have a clearer estimation of what they know and don’t know.
Knows a lot of things
The irony is that although foxes are more often right, they get less air time. In fact, judging from seeing the same faces all the time on television despite being woefully off on their predictions, it pays to be a hedgehog. Maybe people just have short memories, so being wrong is rarely fatal.
So, which is better?
I’m going to try to answer the question in a foxy hedgehog style. In other words, there are clear advantages for each style, depending on the situation. We’ll look at three different activities – learning, thinking, and persuading – each considered over the short term and the long term, for a total of six different scenarios.
Learning. In focusing on what to study and learn, there is no question that you should be a hedgehog early in your career, so that you can establish solid credentials and expertise in one particular area. It could be an academic discipline such as electrical engineering or finance, or it could just be becoming a deep expert on your craft, or even your specific accounts. You want to get so knowledgeable and so good at what you do that you become recognized as the “go-to” person. So many fields require years of focused learning and improvement to master that it behooves you not to scatter your attention early.
Even when you think you’ve mastered your field, you can’t stop learning. Because we are learning so much about so many things, there is a half-life to knowledge in any field, and a lot of “facts” that you take for granted are probably wrong, or will eventually be proven wrong.
Yet, as you get promoted to positions of higher responsibility, you’re going to find yourself dealing with more and more situations that your expertise has not prepared you for. In order to avoid Peter Principle, you have to become more of a fox; get curious about the wider world, broaden your knowledge, and learn to blend in different perspectives. In general, learn like a hedgehog early to establish a secure base, and then evolve into a fox.
Thinking style. I come down solidly on the foxy side on this one, both for the short and the long term. We all crave the comfort of simplicity, the stability of “timeless” ideas, and the seductive clarity of apparent patterns, but that’s dangerous in a complex and dynamic environment. Especially as you rise in an organization, more and more of the problems you will have to solve are people problems, and people are too diverse and complicated to fit into the neat little certainties that hedgehogs love. Plus, the world changes too quickly for a single big idea to hold its power for very long. Check out the subsequent track records of the “great” companies that Collins wrote about for all the confirmation you need about that.
You should almost always think like a fox. (I would say always, but that would turn it into an oxymoron.)
Persuasive expression. In the short run, it’s clearly more persuasive to speak like a hedgehog, because listeners respond to clarity and confidence. If your only goal is to win others over to your point of view – right now – then go full hedgehog on them. That’s what TV pundits and transactional salespeople do, because it works.
But if you care about long term credibility, keep in mind that most people have excellent memories about things that affect them directly. They will pay attention and they will keep score, and they will be especially more likely to remember your inevitable mistakes unless you learn to speak with a certain amount of fox-like humility. It’s good to have conviction and clarity, but sustainable agreements are more likely when you remain open to others’ reactions and inputs. They will feel greater ownership of the decision taken and you may actually learn something that will improve your original idea. To encapsulate this approach, it’s hard to improve on Bob Johansen’s phrase, “strong opinions, which are weakly held.”
In summary, the choice between being a hedgehog or a fox is a false trade-off. The most effective way to go through life is to strive to be that rare hybrid known as foxy hedgehog!
Preparing for the big presentation
According to research by developmental psychologists Alison Gopnik and Betty Repacholi, babies develop empathy some time between 14 and 18 months of age, which is much earlier than was originally thought.[1]
They discovered this through an ingenious experiment in which babies of each age group were offered the choice of either broccoli or Goldfish crackers. Not surprisingly, most preferred the Goldfish. Next, Repacholi selected one of the foods and either made a delighted or a disgusted face when she bit into it. Finally, she would hold out her hand to the baby and ask for some food.
The 18 month old babies would offer Repacholi the one that they saw that she liked, regardless of whether it was the one they liked. The 14 month old babies would show confusion when she appeared to like the broccoli, and then would offer her the Goldfish.
What this meant was that they had developed the capacity for empathy, to see others as different individuals, with their own likes and dislikes. Before these experiments, psychologists had thought that children did not develop empathy until much later, so Gopnik and Repacholi pushed back the boundaries to a much earlier stage in their development.
Curiously, scientists haven’t done any additional research to determine the age at which humans lose the capacity for empathy, or for putting themselves into the minds of others. I think I may be able to offer researchers a clue. I’ve noticed a similar look of confusion on the faces of full grown adults when I tell them their sales presentations have to be about the buyer and not about themselves.
They insist on including several slides about their own companies, their products, and their cool technologies. They get excited about their product’s features, without stopping to consider whether the customer actually cares. It’s all about what they like.
It seems that humans develop empathy at around 18 months, and lose it right around the time they have to make a presentation. Just doing my bit to advance scientific knowledge…
[1] The story comes from Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights, by Gary Klein.
Hey, smart guy. Yeah, you in the front of the room who are trying to sell me on your product. Cut out the Geek speak!
I get that your product contains extremely advanced technology. I also get that you know more about the technology than anyone in the room.
But I don’t care.
I don’t care because I can’t understand half of what you’ve said; you’re not speaking my language. I don’t speak Geek; I speak the language of “So What?”
I’m not stupid, and I probably could understand if I wanted to make the effort, but you haven’t told me why I should care. You haven’t told me what problem you’re going to solve for me, or how you’re going to make my life better. In fact, you still haven’t shown me that you know enough about me and my company to be able to tell me.
I don’t care because I can’t quite wrap my mind around those multisyllabic generalities you’re throwing out. What’s it like? How does it relate to something I already know? Make it concrete so I can see what you mean.
And those acronyms you’re throwing around? I have no clue what they mean but I’m definitely not going to embarrass myself by admitting it to you. It’s easier just to tune you out.
I get the fact that you’re passionate about your technology, and I applaud that. But if you love your product so much, do it a favor and tell the world about it in plain English. We don’t all speak Geek
