So much for the “Trump Bump.”
Latest Philly Fed print was a bit of a surprise. The regional manufacturing Business Index collapsed from 17.0 to -4.1, the first negative and the lowest print since May 2016.
So much for the “Trump Bump.”
Latest Philly Fed print was a bit of a surprise. The regional manufacturing Business Index collapsed from 17.0 to -4.1, the first negative and the lowest print since May 2016.
“Why didn’t Acme Co. accept our offer?”
“Why should I hire you over somebody else?”
“Where do you see this relationship going?”
“Where do babies come from?”
Questions. Sometimes they’re as innocuous as “What’s up?” and other times they get our hearts pumping and our mouths stuttering.
Part of being a man is knowing how to improvise, and part of improvisation is being able to think on your feet. It’s a skill that includes the ability to give impromptu remarks, as well as to answer unexpected and difficult questions.
People ask pointed questions to obtain information, but there are often other reasons behind their queries as well. What they really want, in many cases, is to get a feel for your attitude towards a certain subject, and how calm, confident, and trustworthy you seem.
So the ability to answer difficult questions is built on two tenets: 1) possessing ample knowledge and giving the right information, and 2) delivering that information in a poised manner.
The number of potential questions you might be asked is so infinite and context-specific that it’s not possible to learn a scripted response for each. But it is possible to hone your improvisation skills by learning methods that will allow you to give a smooth answer, no matter what you’re asked.
These methods come from the surprisingly handy Thinking on Your Feet by Marian K. Woodall and we’ll be sharing them with you today.
When someone aims a question our way, we’re tempted to jump on it as if it’s a live grenade. We fear that even a bit of silence will be read as hesitation, and perhaps even shiftiness. So we rush in…only to be forced to stick our feet in our mouths.
The answer you blurt out on impulse is unlikely to be the best response, and you’ll kick yourself later while mulling over the things you wished you had said.
So the biggest thing you can do to improve your responses to difficult questions is to buy yourself more time to come up with answers. Even a few extra nanoseconds gives your brain a chance to do a little more processing and pull out the pertinent information and needed words.
Allowing yourself a tiny pause to collect your thoughts is completely fine. Just don’t fill that gap with an “Uhhh…” or “Ummm…” which makes you sound halting and unsure. A moment of silence, on the other hand, will lend you a thoughtful air.
You can also repeat the question before launching into your answer. Speaking the question and then the answer offers a fuller response; it also helps others in a large audience who may not have heard the question when it was first asked.
In addition to embracing the silent pause or repeating the question, there are other techniques that will not only buy yourself extra processing time, but have other benefits as well. Let’s take a look at how they work.
Questions come in many forms, and you’re not always lucky enough to get the short, clear, focused variety; sometimes, you’re presented with a vague, complex, rambling, and downright impenetrable query.
Don’t guess at what information the inquirer is looking for; misinterpreting their question may end up causing offense, or at least invoking an irritable response: “That’s not what I asked you.”
The much more effective approach is to clarify the question — to essentially get yourself a better one — before giving your response. This will not only make the question easier to answer, but will create a delay that gives your brain more time to think.
Woodall recommends several ways to nudge the inquirer into giving you a better, easier-to-handle question:
1. Ask them to repeat the question.
Just as you often wish you could take back an answer, people frequently wish they could reword their question because they aren’t happy with how it came out. Here you give them the chance for a do-over. Their second take is likely to be shorter, clearer, and more focused than the first.
Asking to have a question repeated has something of a formal air; I suppose we associate it with job interviews or courtrooms or something. So keep in mind that this is a tactic which is more natural in professional settings than casual conversation.
2. Ask for clarification.
If a question is vague and/or all over the place, respond with a question of your own that seeks to clarify and specify what the seeker is trying to get at. Which product is he referring to? What timeframe does she have in mind? Which aspect of something are they thinking about?
An especially effective way to focus the question is by asking the inquirer to select between choices:
3. Ask for a definition.
Even when everyone is using the same words, they can mean different things to different people. To avoid talking past each other, ask the questioner how they define key words in their inquiry.
Woodall points out that when someone has asked a question with the purpose of cornering you, asking them to define their terms can turn the tables and stump the stumper. For example, someone may ask, “Why do you think hunting is manly?” To which you reply, “Well, first of all, how do you define manliness?” Oftentimes, the person isn’t actually sure what they’re asking, in which case they may either withdraw the question, or, tangle themselves up in such knots that the original question is forgotten. If they do come up with a definition, well, now you’re both on the same page, and you gained extra time to think about your response.
4. Clarify or define a point yourself.
One way to take greater control of an interaction is to define the question as you see it within your response:
The downside of asserting your own definition of things is that the other party may not see it that way, and may become frustrated by your response.
Sometimes questions are relatively clear, but they’re inappropriate, and you don’t wish, for various reasons, to answer them in full. Your response must then be hedged. Hedging has a somewhat unsavory reputation, as it’s associated with dishonesty and manipulation. But it need not be used for nefarious purposes. Sometimes you really can’t give someone the answer they seek, whether it’s because that information is classified, private, sensitive, or isn’t appropriate for a particular audience. You’re not obligated to talk about private things you don’t want to talk about.
Furthermore, sometimes people ask questions that have a hidden agenda or are simply off-topic, and will sidetrack you from your own agenda in a meeting or class. It’s important to know how to keep your remarks on track with what you want to accomplish.
Yet, you also typically don’t desire to offend or make the inquirer feel embarrassed. So, while a straight “That’s none of your business,” is all that’s needed in some scenarios, it’s oftentimes in your best interest to deliver your “noneya” in much more diplomatic terms. An artful hedge will at the least spare the inquirer from feeling like a toad, and at best, leave the seeker feeling that their question was in fact answered.
Here are techniques Woodall recommends for pulling off a successful indirect response:
1. Respond to one aspect of the question/line of questioning.
If a question is multi-faceted, and there are some aspects you don’t want to address, but at least one you’re comfortable speaking to, focus your response on that part:
While you might think failing to answer each of a seeker’s questions will leave them unappeased, you’d be surprised how often they’ll let it go at your single answer. Sometimes an inappropriate question slips out, and the inquirer is actually relieved when you ignore it. And oftentimes folks who ask a particularly long-winded, multi-faceted question aren’t exactly sure what they want to know; they’re just feeling generally concerned. A simple answer that demonstrates positivity and confidence will leave them satisfied.
If the seeker is not satisfied, however, and wants to circle back to the unanswered parts of their question, that’s fine; by forwarding the initial exchange, you gave your brain a couple more minutes of subconscious processing time to figure out how to respond to the more difficult bits.
2. Refocus the question.
If there’s a part of a question you can’t, or don’t think it’s a good idea to speak to, focus on an aspect that you are able to discuss. You do that, Woodall writes, by taking “one word from the question (usually not the main topic word) which you are willing to talk about, and [building] a strong, supported response around it.”
3. “Discuss” the question.
Sometimes it seems like people are looking for a specific answer to a question, when really they just want to have their question discussed. There really isn’t a singular answer to give. They want to hear both sides of an idea, or they just want to know that you’ve been thinking about it too, or they simply want acknowledgement that their question is something it’s okay to wonder about. In many cases, these inquiries are answered with a question that tries to probe deeper into the topic at hand.
4. Build a bridge.
With this technique you build a bridge from what the question asked to what you really want to talk about. This technique is similar to the refocusing strategy, but the break between the content of the question and that of your answer is sharper.
If you’ve ever watched politicians on TV news shows and candidates in debates, you’ll be very familiar with the bridging technique. A politician will be asked about their stance on the war, and they’ll answer, “The war is an important issue that needs to be addressed. But I really want to talk about the tax hike my opponent is proposing.”
The bridge response can be infuriating, and I certainly don’t recommend dodging important questions with it. But it can also be essential in sticking to your agenda when you’re presented with off-topic queries in a meeting you’re leading, a Q&A you’re facilitating, or a lecture you’re giving.
The trick is to bridge to your talking points as smoothly as possible so the transition isn’t very awkward or noticeable. To do this, first acknowledge the significance of the question’s subject, and then look for a logical pivot point towards what you think is the more important issue:
5. Use a funnel.
With the bridge technique, you pivot entirely away from the question’s main subject. But sometimes you just want to narrow the field of discussion, while also encouraging follow-up questions and continued conversation on one certain aspect. With the funnel approach, you can accomplish this by acknowledging the larger issue and then using narrowing words to direct your audience’s attention to the area you most want to spotlight:
The key with all these hedging strategies is delivery. Hesitating and acting sheepish will render them wholly ineffective. Demonstrating confidence and strength will lend you the air of a captain directing a tour boat; people will enjoy coming along for the ride. Remember, when people ask questions, they’re not just looking for answers; they want to get a sense for what you’re like and how you handle pressure.
Sometimes the best way to answer a difficult question is to give a totally straightforward answer. This forthrightness can be refreshing and disarming.
Now, I know some of you are thinking (in a cowboy drawl voice): “You should always shoot from the hip! A real man doesn’t hedge.”
That certainly sounds nice, but as with most bumper-sticker-esque maxims, it’s basically complete poppycock.
We all hedge our answers to questions every single day. Else, when someone asks, “How’s it going?” you answer with, “Well, I had a big fight with my wife last night, and my truck needs new brakes…” We all refocus and only partially answer the questions that are regularly put to us.
The art of improvisation simply requires knowing how and how much to respond in widely varying circumstances; when to pull the accordion out, and when to contract it. Learning this skill, and buying yourself extra time to deploy it, assures that you won’t blurt out answers you’ll spend the next month wishing you could take back, and that your confident, smooth responses will help you navigate your relationships and career like a sir.
This predatory exploitation is only possible if the central bank and state have partnered with financial Elites.
After decades of denial, the mainstream has finally conceded that rising income and wealth inequality is a problem–not just economically, but politically, for as we all know wealth buys political influence/favors, and as we’ll see below, the federal government enables and enforces most of the skims and scams that have made the rich richer and everyone else poorer.
Here’s the problem in graphic form: from 1947 to 1979, the family income of the top 1% actually expanded less that the bottom 99%. Since 1980, the income of the 1% rose 224% while the bottom 80% barely gained any income at all.
Globalization, i.e. offshoring of jobs, is often blamed for this disparity, but as I explained in “Free” Trade, Jobs and Income Inequality, the income of the top 10% broke away from the bottom 90% in the early 1980s, long before China’s emergence as an exporting power.
Indeed, by the time China entered the WTO, the top 10% in the U.S. had already left the bottom 90% in the dust.
The only possible explanation of this is the rise of financialization: financiers and financial corporations (broadly speaking, Wall Street, benefited enormously from neoliberal deregulation of the financial industry, and the conquest of once-low-risk sectors of the economy (such as mortgages) by the storm troopers of finance.
Financiers skim the profits and gains in wealth, and Main Street and the middle / working classes stagnate. Gordon Long and I discuss the ways financialization strip-mines the many to benefit the few in our latest conversation (with charts): Our “Lawnmower” Economy.
Many people confuse the wealth earned by people who actually create new products and services with the wealth skimmed by financiers. One is earned by creating new products, services and business models; financialized “lawnmowing” generates no new products/services, no new jobs and no improvements in productivity–the only engine that generates widespread wealth and prosperity.
Consider these favorite financier “lawnmowers”:
1. Buying a company, loading it with debt to cash out the buyers and then selling the divisions off: no new products/services, no new jobs and no improvements in productivity.
2. Borrowing billions of dollars in nearly free money via Federal Reserve easy credit and using the cash to buy back corporate shares, boosting the value of stock owned by insiders and management: no new products/services, no new jobs and no improvements in productivity.
3. Skimming money from the stock market with high-frequency trading (HFT): no new products/services, no new jobs and no improvements in productivity.
4. Borrowing billions for next to nothing and buying high-yielding bonds and investments in other countries (the carry trade): no new products/services, no new jobs and no improvements in productivity.
All of these are “lawnmower” operations, rentier skims enabled by the Federal Reserve, its too big to fail banker cronies, a complicit federal government and a toothless corporate media.
This is not classical capitalism; it is predatory exploitation being passed off as capitalism. This predatory exploitation is only possible if the central bank and state have partnered with financial Elites to strip-mine the many to benefit the few.
This has completely distorted the economy, markets, central bank policies, and the incentives presented to participants.
The vast majority of this unproductive skimming occurs in a small slice of the economy–yes, the financial sector. As this article explains, the super-wealthy financial class Doesn’t Just Hide Their Money. Economist Says Most of Billionaire Wealth is Unearned.
“A key empirical question in the inequality debate is to what extent rich people derive their wealth from “rents”, which is windfall income they did not produce, as opposed to activities creating true economic benefit.
Political scientists define “rent-seeking” as influencing government to get special privileges, such as subsidies or exclusive production licenses, to capture income and wealth produced by others.
However, Joseph Stiglitz counters that the very existence of extreme wealth is an indicator of rents.
Competition drives profit down, such that it might be impossible to become extremely rich without market failures. Every good business strategy seeks to exploit one market failure or the other in order to generate excess profit.
The bottom-line is that extreme wealth is not broad-based: it is disproportionately generated by a small portion of the economy.”
This small portion of the economy depends on the central bank and state for nearly free money, bail-outs, guarantees that profits are private but losses are shifted to the taxpaying public–all the skims and scams we’ve seen protected for seven long years by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Learn how our “Lawnmower Economy” works (with host Gordon Long; 26:21 minutes)