Many teams do not go silent because they lack ideas.
They go silent because speaking up feels risky, pointless, or simply not worth the effort.
In meetings, this often shows up as long pauses, surface-level agreement, or conversations that stay safely within familiar territory.
Leaders may see this as a motivation problem, but more often it is a question problem.
The way questions are asked shapes what people are willing to think, share, and challenge out loud. This article looks at how a different approach to questioning can help teams move from silence to better conversations and better decisions.
Table of Contents
- 1. “Questions” Matter in the Age of AI
- 2. What Is Assertive Inquiry? The Mindset Behind Better Team Conversations
- 3. Why Assertive Inquiry Improves Decision-Making in Teams
- 4. Defensive Reasoning and Why Teams Stop Asking Real Questions
- 5. Assertive Inquiry vs. Aggressive Questioning
- 6. What Teams Should Aim For to Foster Productive Discussion
1. “Questions” Matter in the Age of AI
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
As we enter the era of AI, this phrase has become almost impossible to avoid.
Because most generative AI products are built around conversational interfaces, the ability to clearly explain context, intent, and constraints through questions has suddenly become a critical skill. The quality of the output is directly tied to the quality of the input, especially the question.
But here’s the real question:
Did this suddenly become important because of AI?
Not really.
Humans are cognitively wired to respond to questions. When we encounter a question mark in a conversation, we instinctively try to make sense of it, to fill in the gap. Questions have always shaped the direction, depth, and continuity of dialogue.
In organizations, questions are not just conversational tools.
They are decision-making tools, and that’s precisely why they need to be used with care.
From customer discovery to strategy discussions, the way we ask questions determines whether a conversation becomes collaborative or combative. In that sense, assertive inquiry is less a communication technique and more a decision-making discipline.
2. What Is Assertive Inquiry? The Mindset Behind Better Team Conversations
One well-known example comes from P&G, which is often cited as an organization that applied principles of assertive inquiry in leadership and decision-making contexts during its strategic transformation.
This concept is rooted in the work of Chris Argyris, a Harvard Business School scholar, particularly his research on “advocacy and inquiry” and double-loop learning.
Assertive inquiry is not about being loud or forceful.
It’s about doing two things at the same time:
- Clearly explaining your own thinking, assumptions, and reasoning
- Genuinely inviting others to challenge, expand, or refine that thinking
In practice, assertive inquiry is built on three key steps.
Step 1. Share Your Perspective, Then Ask for Theirs
You first explain how you see the situation, including the reasoning behind it.
Then, you explicitly invite alternative views.
“This is how I’m currently looking at the situation, mainly because of these reasons.
I might be missing something though. Do you see it differently?”
This framing signals openness. You’re not presenting your idea as “the answer,” but as a working hypothesis.
Step 2. Reflect Their View Back and Confirm Understanding
Next, you paraphrase the other person’s perspective to confirm that you understood them correctly.
“So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that ___ because of ___.
Did I get that right?”
This step does two important things:
- It prevents misunderstanding
- It shows respect for the other person’s reasoning process
Step 3. Ask for Clarification Where It Doesn’t Make Sense
If there’s a part you still don’t understand, you name it clearly and ask for more information.
“That helps a lot. I think the part I’m still unclear on is ___.
Could you walk me through how you got there?”
This keeps the conversation focused on learning, not winning.
One simple sentence, “I might be missing something here,” has surprising power.
It subtly communicates:
“My view isn’t complete. Your input matters.”
By doing so, it disarms the natural defensive instincts most of us carry into discussions, and it creates the conditions for a far more productive conversation.
3. Why Assertive Inquiry Improves Decision-Making in Teams
In organizations, a “good decision” is not simply one that sounds logical in the room.
A good decision is one that:
- Accurately defines the real problem
- Solves that problem effectively
- Creates meaningful outcomes or opportunities for the organization
In other words, a decision only proves its value when it leads to measurable impact.
This is why problem definition matters so much.
Problem Definition Is Not Just Observation
Simply observing surface-level symptoms is never enough to define a problem properly.
To truly define a problem, teams must:
- Understand the background information that led to it
- Examine the context in which it emerged
- Compare different interpretations and perspectives
This requires a two-phase thinking process:
- Divergence: expanding the range of information and viewpoints
- Convergence: synthesizing that information into a clear, shared problem statement
High-quality decision-making depends on high-quality input during this divergence phase.
Where Good Questions Come In
The most valuable information during divergence comes from deeply understanding each stakeholder’s context.
And that kind of understanding is only possible through good questions.
Assertive inquiry helps teams surface:
- Hidden assumptions
- Unspoken constraints
- Different mental models
By contrast, questions driven by defensive or argumentative instincts tend to shut this process down.
When people forget that their information is inherently limited, confirmation bias intensifies. The problem definition becomes narrow, personal, and subjective: less “our problem,” more “my opinion.”
At that point, the organization is no longer solving a shared problem. It’s just amplifying individual perspectives.
4. Defensive Reasoning and Why Teams Stop Asking Real Questions
In many organizations, people unconsciously adopt a self-protective stance in discussions.
They decorate their arguments with sophisticated language, data points, and rhetoric, not to learn, but to defend.
As this pattern repeats:
- People listen less
- They focus more on persuasion than understanding
- Conversations slowly drift away from the organization’s goal
What starts as a discussion about outcomes turns into a competition for credit.
When “Asking Questions” Goes Wrong
Things get worse when assertive inquiry is misunderstood as simply adding a question mark.
Consider questions like:
- “Why would you think that?”
- “Isn’t it obvious we should be doing X?”
- “What have you even been doing until now?”
On the surface, these look like questions.
In reality, they are judgments disguised as curiosity.
These questions do not invite exploration. They force justification.
And once someone feels forced to justify themselves, they become defensive, almost instantly.
5. Assertive Inquiry vs. Aggressive Questioning
| Dimension | Assertive Inquiry | Aggressive Questioning |
|---|---|---|
| Center of the Conversation | We | Me |
| Direction | Future-oriented | Past-oriented |
| Primary Intention | Collaborate to reach a shared goal | Defend a personal viewpoint |
| Underlying Message | “We’re trying to reach a shared goal. To get there, I want us to think together, challenge assumptions, and expand our understanding.” | “I don’t agree with you. Convince me.” |
| Psychological Impact | Creates psychological safety and openness | Triggers defensiveness |
| Effect on Discussion | Encourages learning and rigorous, constructive debate | Turns discussion into justification and conflict |
| Outcome for Teams | Better problem definition and decision quality | Fragmented alignment and stalled progress |
Assertive inquiry creates psychological safety while still allowing for rigorous debate.
When aggressive questioning is driven by judgment rather than curiosity, it often carries subtle condescension or pressure.
For example:
“Why do you think that?”
Often really means:
“I don’t think that makes sense. Explain yourself.”
The assumption of error is already baked into the question. As a result, the conversation shifts from collaboration to defense, and learning stops.
6. What Teams Should Aim For to Foster Productive Discussion
Aggressive questioning doesn’t just shut people down. It turns discussions into battles.
The outcome is damaging at every level:
- Individuals reinforce narrow perspectives
- Teams lose alignment
- Organizations drift further away from their goals
Organizations exist to achieve shared outcomes.
And because people come from different backgrounds, experiences, and value systems, the real challenge is not eliminating differences but using them productively.
The Role of Good Questions
Good questions are:
- Specific
- Thought-expanding
- Action-oriented
If a conversation leaves you feeling:
- “So what?”
- “What am I supposed to do with this?”
- “Why did this person even say that?”
There’s a high chance something has gone wrong.
But calling it out with another aggressive question
“Why are you talking like that?”
only adds more confusion.
A Better Alternative
If you genuinely care about your own growth and your organization’s success, start by reframing the problem in a “we” and “future-oriented” way.
Instead of:
“Why are you saying it like that?”
Try:
“I’m a bit concerned that this way of discussing the issue might not help us move forward. What kind of conversation would help our team navigate the future more effectively?”
That small shift can change everything.
Assertive inquiry is not about being softer or avoiding conflict.
It is a structured way of asking better questions, improving team communication, and making higher-quality decisions, especially in cross-functional, high-stakes environments.
Want to Go Deeper into Practical Product Management?
How teams talk and think together matters.
But for product managers, those conversations only become valuable
when they lead to better judgment and execution.
If you are curious about:
- the principles that guide day-to-day product decisions,
- how to navigate ambiguity without hiding behind frameworks,
- and the kind of product management that works in practice,
you may find this article helpful:
👉 Actionable Product Management Principles: A Practical Guide for Product Managers