Newsletter and Grammar Coach

When toddlers begin learning to talk, they quickly discover the usefulness of two words in their early vocabulary: “no” and “why.” Inquisitive kids who discover the power of the word “why” use it persistently — and not necessarily out of curiosity.

“OK, Tommy, let’s pick up the toys now.”

“Why?”

“Because we’re going to get ready for your bath.”

“Why?”

“Well, so we can get you nice and clean.”

“Why?”

Any adult within earshot of such an extended exchange knows how grating the “why” question can become. Older kids soon find themselves on the receiving end.

“Tommy, why did you do that?”

“Tommy, why haven’t you cleaned your room yet?”

“Tommy, why are you ignoring your mother?”

Over time, the “why” question becomes associated with accusation, and consequently puts people in a defensive posture. Think of a defendant on trial: “Tell the court why you did that.”

That’s unfortunate, because asking “why” is a direct, unequivocal means of obtaining useful information and explanations. Whether conducting a job interview, trying to determine the cause of something, or trying to learn the rationale for a decision, “why” gets to the heart of the matter. However, being asked “why” can be intimidating. People who feel on the defensive end of a discussion are unlikely to be forthcoming in divulging information. Being asked “why” can make people reserved or hesitant. That’s not an effective way to elicit information.

Fortunately, you can use lines of questioning other than bluntly asking “why” to learn the purpose or reason for something.

“Help me understand.”

When we at EditPros are having a conversation (we prefer that term to “interviewing) with someone to obtain information, we typically avoid asking “why” something occurs. Let’s say we’re speaking with Barbara. We’re likely to ask, “Barbara, can you help me understand …?” That approach reinforces the concept that you regard Barbara as someone in whom you have confidence to explain subject matter that you don’t fully understand.

If you’re trying to learn why a particular decision was made — why one job applicant was chosen over another, why a regulation was adopted, why an office is being closed — but you want to avoid creating the impression of being accusatory, you can use any of several gentler approaches to elicit that information.

Ask about motivation, not provocation

Barbara might interpret another question — “what provoked that decision?” —as harsh and critical. Instead you might try “what induced that change?” or “what motivated that decision?” To cast the question in an even more positive light, consider asking, “what inspired that decision?” or “what influenced the decision to change direction?”

Ask “how” to focus on the underlying process

Asking “why” sometimes can elicit a terse, guarded response. The thought process behind a decision can lend insight and yield a much more meaningful explanation. Consider a more hospitable approach, such as, “how did the organization function previously?” or “how did this idea for a new approach develop?” or “how did you realize that a change would be advisable?”

Use “what” as a buffer

Instead of asking “why,” try to compose questions in a “what” context, as in “what prompted that decision?” or a variation, “what led to that decision?” That approach reframes the question from a blame focus to a query about the conditions or situation upon which the decision hinged.

Focus on the purpose of an action or decision. You might ask Barbara, “what conditions or changes in the marketplace came to your attention?” or “what stands out in your mind as a pivotal point that gave rise to that decision?”

Asking about the intention or objective of a policy change is less threatening than point-blank asking why. You might ask, “what new opportunities does this change enable?” or “where has this new policy taken the company?”

How do you mean?

Even “what” can put someone in a defensive mode if the question is “what do you mean?” We’re reminded of a successful salesperson who countered customers’ objections not by asking “what do you mean” but rather “how do you mean?” Although not a grammatically correct inquiry, “how do you mean?” softly and indirectly seeks an explanation that can help lead to common ground and a constructive resolution.

A query that’s not a question

You can even cast a question as a statement — a request: “please tell me about the way that new policy was developed.” Grammatically, that is a statement, not a question. Furthermore, that approach shifts attention from Barbara to the fact-finding and analytical process. As the conversation continues, you can interject “tell me more” to obtain further explanation.

Yes, all of those questions are wordier than simply asking “why,” but they build a cushion around the question and give Barbara a soft landing place.

The most productive questions elicit the most explanatory answers. Asking about someone’s decision-making process rather than bluntly asking “why” offers a way to change an accusatory-sounding question into a compliment. “Tell me how you decided” is an invitation for Barbara to share her insights. That’s a mark of respect rather than a threat, and is likely to elicit far more useful information than asking “why?”

Throughout the first eight decades of statehood, earthquake-prone California lacked building and engineering codes to reduce earthquake-induced structural damage that endangered human life. The devastating 1933 Long Beach earthquake in which at least 115 people died and more than 100 schools were heavily damaged or destroyed brought about the first meaningful change. Fortunately the quake occurred in the late afternoon, when students were already home. The quake precipitated passage of two precedent-setting structural integrity laws: the Field Act, which empowered the Office of the State Architect with regulatory authority over construction of public schools, and the Riley Act, which set minimum locally enforceable standards for constructing buildings in general. Other deadly earthquakes since then have instigated additional legislation that established greatly improved safety standards — but development and passage of those bills wasn't easy.

Disaster prevention and hazard mitigation expert Robert A. Olson was instrumental in drafting key seismic safety bills and shepherding them through the legislative process, which he documents in his book When Good Science Won (But It Wasn't Easy): California's Rise to Earthquake Safety Leadership. Olson describes the lengthy, often labyrinthine course through which earthquake safety requirements are conceived and codified into law.

Olson, the first executive director of the California Seismic Safety Commission, from 1975 to 1981, used EditPros’ Book Prep service to publish his history of the state’s earthquake safety legislation. His engaging narrative in the book transports readers into the rubble of earthquake-damaged buildings, roads and bridges, and deep into the corridors of the state Capitol, as he describes the negotiations that led to passage of the two pioneering laws stemming from the Long Beach earthquake. The book also explores the negotiations behind legislation instigated by three other catastrophic convulsions: the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the 1989 Loma Prieta quake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

When Good Science Won (But it Wasn't Easy): California's Rise to Earthquake Safety Leadership is as much about geologic underpinnings and damaging effects of earthquakes as it is about legislative politics: the process that every proposed California law undergoes from idea to law (or rejection). The seismic safety bills that California's legislature passed into law are testaments to the earnestness and diligence of lawmakers, volunteer advocates and staffers whose intention was to protect the people of California and minimize damage to public and private property.

The 200-page hardback book, printed with a dust jacket, also is available in e-book formats for sale through Amazon (Kindle), Apple (iBooks), Barnes & Noble (Nook), and Kobo. This is the 33rd book that Book Prep has produced for authors during the past five years.

As part of the Book Prep package, EditPros professionally formatted the interior pages of When Good Science Won (But It Wasn't Easy), designed its cover, readied it for print publication, and reformatted it for e-book specifications.

With Book Prep, authors retain all rights to their books, and collect 100 percent of sales royalties.

LEARN MORE about the EditPros Book Prep service.

Greg L. wrote:

The grammar coach replies:

* * * * *

Are you perplexed by some aspect of grammar or word usage? Don't be shy! Ask the "grammar coach" at EditPros and we'll try to help — at no charge, just for the sport of it.

Do you know of a friend or colleague whose office can benefit from EditPros’ services? If you do, you may be able to earn a “referral reward” of up to $500 from EditPros.   

We invite you to submit your questions to the "grammar coach," and we welcome you to subscribe to this monthly newsletter — which we'll send to your e-mail address at no charge. We respond to all "grammar coach" questions personally, but delays may occur because we must place top priority on assignments from our clients. We appreciate your patience and your interest.

You also can change your e-mail subscription address. For an address change, please indicate your existing AND your new e-mail address. Thank you.

OUR PRIVACY POLICY for e-mail newsletter subscribers:

We do not use any commercial e-mail lists or automated mass-mailing programs, and we do not allow access to the list by anyone else for any reason. Our subscriber list is maintained by hand, and it is not for sale. We are protective of confidentiality because many of our readers are also clients of ours.