I have spent twenty years as a manager, fifteen of those as an executive manager. Over time, I have become just as passionate about managing as practicing law. Through trial and error, learning from my mistakes, receiving feedback from the people I have managed, talking to fellow managers, and training and reading, I have gotten better. And there is always room for improvement. Management will be an occasional topic on Justice Blog. Here is the first post focused on management.
Both inquisitive and inquisitorial (yes, inquisitorial is a word) have the same etymological origin: inquisition, as in the inquisitions of the late middle ages. Though the derivation comes from the same place, the two words, as most commonly used today, or at least as used by me, have quite different meanings. An inquisitorial approach is akin to cross-examining a witness — asking questions that are focused on getting specific answers. Essentially, tell me what I need to know. I think of inquisitive as being curious. Asking questions in an more open-ended way and working to find answers together.
There can be a fine line between inquisitive and inquisitorial approaches and a manager has to be able to ask questions using both styles. There is a need sometimes to be quite directive, especially on issues like personnel issues or on time-intensive matters. And in the same conversation it may be beneficial to toggle between the two. The deadline for a brief is quite specific whereas there may be numerous ways that a brief could be organized. But over time, I have to believe that it is better to spend the majority of time as an inquisitive manager rather than an inquisitorial one.
The ultimate goal is that you want employees to maximize the impact of the organization’s work. In the long run, you are more likely to get there if teams and individuals feel comfortable in sharing — sharing their best ideas as well as their mistakes, challenges, and fears. As much as possible, you want people to open up, not shut down. I have seen many a time where inquisitorial questioning has put people on the defensive and I have felt that myself. Taking an open-ended, more curious approach most of the time is more likely to get you there. Your employees will be happier because they will feel more trusted and invested in. And when you go into inquisitorial mode they will be likely to think it is for a good reason, even if they do not know what the reason is, because you have earned their trust.
Let me provide a couple of examples. About a dozen years ago, one of our attorneys was going to be a Power Point presentation to a funder. She previewed this presentation to her supervisor and me. I went into total inquisitorial mode and essentially acted as a hypercritical funder might act. I dominated the conversation and the Power Point ended up being significantly reworked. The presentation went well but I have to think that attorney did not enjoy the experience with me. For many people it is stress-inducing enough to have an executive manager review and comment on their work. I did not need to add to that unnecessarily. I cringe when I think about how I handled this.
I will contrast that with an experience with a couple of months ago. The Lawyers’ Committee team preparing for a redistricting trial in Mississippi was led by Jennifer Nwachukwu, who was giving the opening statement. This was Jennifer’s first trial. I met with Jennifer, David Rollins-Boyd, Javon Davis, and their supervisor, Ezra Rosenberg, for two ninety-minute sessions, the first session two weeks before the trial and the second one week before the trial, to discuss the opening statement and the theory of the case. I did a lot of the talking because my involvement was limited to these sessions but the discussion was free flowing. I asked a lot of questions but they were more open-ended. After the second session, Jennifer and the team felt comfortable about the direction of the opening statement and the theory of the case. I never saw the opening statement Jennifer delivered but Ezra and Jennifer felt great about it and the team appreciated my contribution.
Another example is relatively frequent — you can ask what is essentially the same question in substance, but how you ask the question can make a big difference. One such question, which often comes up in briefs, but can come up in other contexts too, is: “Why did you do this?” The question can be asked aggressively. There are times when the question needs to be asked this way but they are relatively rare. The recipient(s) tend to shut down and try to come up with reasons why have not made a mistake. The question can also be asked in a more open-ended way, such as: “I’m curious why you chose this approach, can you tell me?” Asking the question this way is likely to get a more fulsome response and even one where the responder may express their own doubts about the approach. You try to solve the challenge together.
Regarding these examples, I can identify two ways that I have grown over the years. The first is that I have more confidence and less ego about my ability to manage and lead. I can look at the Power Point example and see that a good part of what was going on there was my need to establish authority. There are times in which a manager needs to establish authority but they are relatively rare. I made the Power Point example about me whereas the opening statement example was about Jennifer and the team.
The second area of growth is that I am more interested in what people have to say than I used to be. I learn more from listening to somebody else than hearing myself talk. There still are times when I will interrupt people mid-sentence when I want to make a quick point. But one thing that happens a lot more than it used to is that when somebody interrupts me mid-sentence, I will stop. I am interested in what they have to say and will assume it is important because they are interrupting. I think is especially important for a decision-maker to listen because that leads to more informed decisions.
Two final points. First, I consider myself a work in progress on the inquisitive vs. inquisitorial leadership style. I got called out by somebody recently for basically acting as a inquisitor in a meeting when I did not need to be. Second, you can be demanding while being inquisitive. In a future blog post, I will talk about how I was a manager that a former colleague described “[a]lways tough, but always fair,” and why I own that characterization.
Next week I will write about a Civil Rights Lawyer Hall of Fame member and then mostly law-focused posts through the end of the Supreme Court term.