Is life and work satisfying? Is your organization the best it can be? If not, this book is for you. The authors show how the questions that we all ask determine the results that we achieve. The idea is simple, yet profound. If you want different results, you need to begin to ask different questions. Based on over a combined 60 years of research and consulting experience, Nadler and Chandon help you understand and begin to ask the same kinds of "right" questions that leading people, who consistently get the best results, ask.

Gerald Nadler, Ph.D:

Gerry is IBM Chair Emeritus in Engineering Management at the University of Southern California. His consulting experience includes almost every type of setting, profit, not-for-profit, government, and non-governmental organizations. He has received over 25 international and national awards for his research and writing and has published 13 books.

William Chandon, Ph.D:

Bill is a Vice President of the Center for Breakthrough Thinking. He has consulted in a wide variety of areas of organizational and business transformation. His specialty is coaching leaders in how to thrive in increasingly virtual, global, and networked environments. He completed his doctoral work in the area of knowledge application in virtual organizations.

Gerald Nadler, Ph.D., is IBM Chair Emeritus in Engineering Management at the University of Southern California. He consults widely for business, charitable and government organizations.

He has received over 25 international and national awards for his work. He is also the author of 13 other books, including Breakthrough Thinking: The Seven Principles of Creative Problem Solving.

William Chandon, Ph.D., is a vice-president of The Center for Breakthrough Thinking. He has had many previous consulting and organizational assignments, and now consults in the area of organizational transformation.

Thomas A. Dworetzky is Director of Communications for The Center for Breakthrough Thinking. He is a magazine consultant, writer, publisher and editor, with many years of executive responsibilities in producing national magazines.

Before you jump into giving our approach a try we have to warn you: This approach is a double-edged sword. It will really work and may both solve your problem and cost you your business-as-usual approach to a job.

So if you aren’t ready to deal with the answers that come from asking the right questions, just quietly put this book back on the shelf and pick one of the many other best-sellers that will let you reinforce the failed approaches you’ve used in the past.

We are not kidding. The core of how to ask the right questions will change things in your life or work forever. If you aren’t ready to change as well, this approach could lead to more trouble than you already have.

To illustrate the power of the questioning concepts of this book, here’s an example of what happens with Question Forward.

Paul, vice president for general operations of a very large national semi-perishable product company, gave a report from the director of distribution to Cliff, his staff assistant. "Look this over and let me know in about a week if I should approve it."

At first glance, the proposal looked good.

It solved the problem (as defined) of high costs, excessive overtime, poor delivery record, and diminished product quality at a loading dock in one of twenty-four national warehouses, proposing an automated loading dock (costing $60,000 with a payback period of eight months). Its justification was good, too. The report had flow charts, statistical analyses of time delays, accounting evaluation of excessive costs and overtime, studies of the damage to the quality of the product due to overcrowding on the loading dock, and so forth.

But Cliff had another idea...he’d been using a different approach in his own work for the last year. He talked a few colleagues, Bob, Terry and George, into helping with his assignment.

Cliff began the group’s first meeting by proposing the following: "Let's start by asking about the purposes of the loading dock, the place where the initial problem was identified. I'll record your statements on the easel."

They put their random statements on some chart paper: to fill orders, to supply dealers, to load trucks, to have customers use our products, to consolidate shipments to dealers, to make company products available for sale, to deliver products to dealers, to transport products to dealers, to provide service about our products, to sell company products.

Cliff: "Now, let's organize these and other purposes we think of from small to large scope. We can start by asking about what the smallest scope purpose is. Then we will continue to ask 'what's the purpose of that purpose' for each of the successively larger purposes until we have included the purposes of our customers and our customers' customers."

The smallest purpose the group selected was...to load trucks.

Cliff: "Now what's the purpose of loading trucks?"

Terry: "What about 'to deliver products?’"

George: "But it seems there is a more direct yet larger purpose of loading trucks. What about 'to consolidate shipments?’"

Such probing led to the rest of the expanded purposes: to consolidate shipments to dealers, to transport products to dealers, to distribute company products to dealers, to make company products available for sale, to sell company products, to put company products in possession of customers, and to provide customers with service of company products.

Cliff: "Now we need to start with our biggest purpose and ask if we should try to develop a solution to achieve it or move to the next smaller one to determine if it should be our focus."

The group, asking this question over and over at each step, then decided that the larger purpose "to distribute company products to dealers" was what really needed to be accomplished (they were determining the right problem to work on).

Cliff: "Given this focus purpose, let's develop what measures we should use to determine how well it is accomplished. They will almost certainly be different than those used for evaluating loading dock solutions."

Bob: "Speed of delivery to dealer."

George: "Cost of whole distribution system. Dealer satisfaction."

They developed several "ideal" options:

1. move mini-manufacturing facilities to sites of big customers
2. produce all products at each factory to eliminate consolidation need
3. ship directly from factory to customer based on electronic ordering from customer, etc.

This let them, based on getting the information they knew they now needed, develop a future solution that would serve as a guide for developing the actual recommendation. Their future solution: Sell the twenty-four warehouses that are not needed because of the new way of distributing company products (option 3 above)!

Terry: "The VP may really toss you out if you tell him that! We better go over that system to make sure it can work and that huge savings and much better customer service will occur."

Cliff: "That leads to the next question. How can we 'see' the whole picture to determine what modifications, if any, would make the system workable and yet stay as close as possible to the ideal?"

The group used primarily a systems-based method (which we will explain later) for working out the details of the solution. They wound up proposing that twenty of the warehouses be sold. The four warehouses that remained consolidated small orders of products being shipped primarily to low-volume customers. The group sketched out the recommendation and included such factors as training current employees for new positions; arranging for possible early retirements; developing the details of interrelationships with the remaining four warehouses, all the factories, and shippers; and prepared for the re-assignment of personnel. They also suggested steps the company might take in the future to move the distribution system toward their ideal future solution.

The results were spectacular even when compared with the outstanding eight-month payback (a "creative" and workable solution for the wrong problem). In addition, an operational issue at the start became a competitive strategic change. (And Cliff never did check the validity of the information in the report!)

Now, compare what you thought were the questions to ask and what Cliff did. (It’s OK to be honest...we won’t grade what you write even if you send it to us.) We believe this will help you grasp the following dissection of what happens when you ask the old questions and what will happen when you ask the Question Forward ones.

You saw in Cliff’s project just how powerful this right-questioning approach can be. It also showed you that you don't have to be top dog to make a radical difference at home or in the workplace. With right-questioning, it is possible to make a real difference, a truly valuable contribution.