In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions... When It Counts

by Jerry Weissman

It's all right to use this once. It's all right to use it twice. It's all right to use it three times. But if you use it before every paraphrase, it sounds as if you're stalling for time.

  Two other common stalls for time are

  "That was a good question."

  "I'm glad you asked that."

  Presenters often resort to either of these Double Buffers as a delaying tactic in reaction to a challenging question that was actually not good, nor are they glad to have been asked it.

  On the other hand, suppose an audience member did ask you a question that was good for you, such as, "All these new features in your product should allow us to get our product to market faster, right?" You could then gleefully use both Double Buffers: "That was a good question! I'm glad you asked that!" You could then go on to extol the virtues of your new product features.

  But then suppose the next audience member asked you, "Yes, but why do you charge so much for your product?" You would hardly say, "That was a bad question! I'm not glad you asked that!" That would be judging and favoring one audience member over the other.

  Another common Double Buffer is

  "What you're really asking…"

  The implication of this phrase is that the questioner isn't capable of formulating the question correctly and that the presenter will charitably reformulate it…an insult to the audience member.

  And another common Double Buffer is

  "If I understand your question…"

  The implication of this Double Buffer is the fatal message, "I wasn't listening." And the final common Double Buffer is

  "The issue/concern is…"

  If you use the word "concern" or "issue" upon retaking the floor, you will be confirming that there is a concern or an issue between you and your audience. Worse still, you will begin your answer carrying forward a negative balance.

  Delete all the Double Buffers listed here from your vocabulary. If you want to use Double Buffers, insert the word "you."

  The Power of "You"

  Insert a "you" in your Double Buffer before your paraphrase.

  "You're asking…"

  "You'd like to know…"

  "Your question is…"

  Contrast the first Double Buffer in this section with the last:

  "The question is…"

  "Your question is…"

  The difference is one word, "you," one of the most powerful in all human communication. A Google search of the Internet abounds with citations of a Yale University study of the most persuasive words in the English language in which "you" leads the list, ahead of "love" and "money." A simpler proof of the power of "you" is that it is synonymous with a person's name. Further validation comes from the branding slogans of some of the world's most successful corporations:

  Are you ready? (Cisco Systems)

  Your potential, Our passion (Microsoft Corporation)

  Have it your way (Burger King)

  Moreover, saying "you" establishes a direct interpersonal connection between you and your questioner. It creates Eye Connect between you and your questioner. Eye Connect is a more specific term than the conventional "eye contact," which is usually done as a sweeping movement. Eye Connect means that you look at a person in your audience until you see him or her look back at you…until you feel the click of engagement.

  Here is why Eye Connect is important: If you were to look at your questioner during a long rambling question and then use the first Double Buffer listed earlier, "The question is…" you would most likely turn to address the rest of the audience. This would abruptly break your Eye Connect with your questioner and make that person feel rudely abandoned.

  If instead you were to use the second Double Buffer, "Your question is…" you would then remain in Eye Connect with your questioner and make that person feel attended. Moreover, you would then see how that person reacts to your Buffer. A frown would indicate that you didn't get it right, and a head nod would indicate that you did. When you get the head nod from your questioner, and only after you get the head nod, are you free to begin your answer.

  Only after you get the head nod are you free to begin your answer.

  The head nod is the equivalent of Marisa Hall's, "Well, yeah, uh-huh." The head nod is the ultimate benefit because it sends the message, "You heard me!" And remember, the head nod in response to an accurate Buffer is involuntary.

  All the foregoing control measures, starting with the moment you retake the floor and continuing up to the moment when you are ready to provide an answer, can be summarized in what is known as the Triple Fail-Safe.

  The Triple Fail-Safe

  First Fail-Safe. Retake the floor only after you have a complete grasp of the Roman Column in the question. This is the equivalent of successful football receivers who run for Yards After Catch only after they have a complete grasp of the ball. If you do not completely grasp the Roman Column, do not take a step forward. Instead, follow the same instructions the U.S. Postal Service stamps on mail with unclear addresses: Return to Sender. Return the floor to the questioner by taking responsibility and saying, "I'm sorry, I didn't follow; would you mind restating the question?"

  Second Fail-Safe. If you are certain that you have grasped the Roman Column, use the key word in your Buffer. During your Buffer, make Eye Connect with the questioner until you see that person's head nod, indicating that you have identified the Roman Column correctly. Move forward into your answer only after you see the head nod.

  Third Fail-Safe. If, despite your best efforts, you get a frown instead of a nod, do not move forward into the answer. Instead, Return to Sender by saying, "I'm sorry, I didn't follow, would you mind restating the question?"

  These three Fail-Safes, depicted in Figure 5.2, are check points that will keep you from rushing into the wrong answer. You will also avoid the dreaded, "You're not listening!" perception or its close cousins, "That's not what I asked!" and "What I'm really asking…"

  Figure 5.2. The Triple Fail-Safe.

  Even with the Triple Fail-Safe, there is the possibility that, because the Roman Column straddles two related issues, you might not fully address both of them in your answer. At that point, the worst that can happen is that the questioner will ask you a follow-on question, "Yes, but what I'd also like to know is…" which is a lot milder than the dreaded, "You're not listening!" reaction.

  Figure 5.3 is a graphical summary of this entire chapter: A question and an answer can be bridged by any of three Buffer options:

  Figure 5.3. Buffer summary.

  Paraphrase. A simple interrogative question.

  "Why have we chosen this price point?"

  "What are my capabilities to reach decision makers?"

  "How do we compete?"

  A "you" phrase before the paraphrase.

  "You're asking, 'Why have we chosen this price point?'"

  "Your question is, 'What are my capabilities to reach decision makers?'"

  "You'd like to know how we compete."

  Key Words.

  "Our pricing is based on…"

  "My capabilities include…"

  "The way we compete is…"

  The first two Buffer options, the paraphrase and the paraphrase preceded by a "you" phrase, buy you thinking time. However, if you use these Buffers too often in your session, you will sound stilted…particularly with the "you" phrase. Although "you" has the many benefits as discussed, it can become too much of a good thing. Starting every Buffer with "you" will make you sound like a hoot owl.

  Key Words, the third Buffer option, allows you no thinking time at all. You must have the ball firmly in your hands before you take a single step. Make sure that the Roman Column is crystal clear in your mind when you utter the first word. However, when you respond without a moment's hesitation, with the Key Word embedded in your answer, you will appear very sharp, very much in control. The Key Word option is the most advanced form of Buffering.

  An outstanding role model of Key Word Buffering is Colin Powell, one of the best pres
enters or speakers ever to stand at a podium. As the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Powell held a press conference for foreign journalists on April 15, 2003, at the Foreign Press Center in Washington, D.C., shortly after the start of the Iraq War (Figure 5.4).

  Figure 5.4. Colin Powell holds a press conference.

  During the session, Mr. Powell fielded 11 questions. Never once did he paraphrase or use a Double Buffer. In every case, he began his answer with the Key Word or Words inherent in the reporters' questions. Consider his challenge: Most of the foreign journalists spoke English as a second language, and so they phrased their questions with syntax and accents that were not native to Mr. Powell. Moreover, as professional journalists, they all tried to cram in multiple questions when their turns came.

  In the following section from the transcript of the conference, we'll look at several of the reporters' questions and then how, in each instance, Mr. Powell promptly retook the floor with only the Key Word Buffer to start his answer. Although his thorough answers continued well beyond his Key Word Buffer, in the interest of illustrating this powerful technique, we will examine only the front end of his answers…the inflection point at which he retook the floor and exercised control.

  Mr. Powell made a brief opening statement and then opened the floor.

  I would be delighted to take your questions.

  The first question came from a Russian man.

  As the chief foreign policy advisor to U.S. President, do you think the UN is still relevant and important from the point of view of prevention of military conflicts, not only humanitarian assistance, and do you think the organization needs to be reformed?

  What is the Key Word? Certainly not the last word, "reformed." If Powell were to deal with that issue, he would land in the dark danger zone on the left of Figure 5.1 because he would be validating the reporter's assertion that the United Nations is irrelevant and in need of reform. Any answer would then be an uphill fight to justify the U.N., which was the very opposite of the United States' stated supportive policy. Instead, the Secretary's first words upon retaking the floor were:

  The UN remains an important organization.

  These Key Words served as a neutralizing Buffer that allowed Powell to go on to offer supporting evidence.

  The President and other leaders in the coalition…Prime Minister Blair, President Aznar, Prime Minister Berlusconi and many others, Prime Minister Howard of Australia…have all indicated that they believe the UN has a role to play as we go forward in the reconstruction and the rebuilding of Iraq.

  His answer continued beyond this point, but let's move on to another question, this one from an Egyptian woman.

  Thank you. Sir, the Israelis said that they presented to you their modification on the roadmap. Have you received anything from the other side, from the Palestinians? And is it still open for change? You have told us before that it is not negotiable. And now on the settlements, on the settlements, as part of the roadmap, eh?

  She was clearly rambling, so Powell tried to get her to clarify.

  The what?

  She tried to explain herself.

  On the settlements, which is part of the roadmap, we see the Israelis are…the activities of building settlements is really very high. We saw it on television. We saw reports…

  He tried to get her to finish by interjecting.

  Thank you.

  She continued,

  So what is your remarks on the settlements?

  What is the Key Word? Certainly not her last words, "the settlements." If Powell were to deal with that issue, he would he would again land in the dark danger zone on the left of Figure 5.1 because he would be validating the reporter's concern with an obstacle to the United States-sponsored peace efforts. Any answer would then focus on only a subordinate aspect of the U.S.'s larger initiative: the roadmap. Instead, his first words upon retaking the floor were:

  With respect to the roadmap…

  By using "the roadmap" as the Key Words rather than "the settlements," Powell created a neutralizing Buffer. This allowed him to move on to a substantive rather than defensive statement.

  …the roadmap will be released to the parties after Mr. Abu Mazen is confirmed, and it will be the roadmap draft that was finished last December.

  He continued his answer to her, but let's proceed to another question, this one from a Lebanese journalist.

  Mr. Secretary, a lot of fears have been made about who is next. And some people believed to be close with the administration said that the regimes backing Cairo and in Saudi Arabia should be nervous right now. How do you address that point? And does the U.S. has a plan to spread a set of values at gunpoint, in your view, at this point?

  "A plan to spread a set of values at gunpoint…" This question accused the United States of acting as a villainous bully, and Powell could not give credence to this charge! When he retook the floor, he immediately countered the accusation by applying the noted anti-drug slogan, "Just say, 'No!'"

  No, of course not.

  Neither Colin Powell, nor you, nor any presenter is under any obligation to respond to an accusation that is untrue in any other way than with a complete refutation. If you are attacked with a question that contains or implies an inaccuracy, do as Colin Powell did; skip the Buffer and come back immediately with a rebuttal.

  No presenter is under any obligation to respond to an accusation that is untrue in any other way than with a complete refutation.

  After his rebuttal, Powell went on to support his position:

  The President has spoken clearly about this, as recently as two days ago, over the weekend. We have concerns about Syria. We have let Syria know of our concerns. We also have concerns about some of the policies of Iran. We have made the Iranians fully aware of our concerns.

  He concluded with a firm restatement of his rebuttal.

  But there is no list.

  This exchange was a variation of the common, "When did you stopping beating your wife?" question. The correct response to that implied charge is, "I never started beating my wife." Counter the false charge on the spot. Stop it in its tracks. Just say, "No!"

  Colin Powell then had another accusation fired at him by a Mexican reporter, who asked,

  Mr. Secretary, I have a question on Cuba. Can you give us an assessment of what is your advice to the countries that are near to both in terms of the human rights situation in Cuba, especially to Mexico that has been too close to the Cuban Government? And a quick second question. There is some countries that are calling the United States the "police of the world." Do you agree with that?

  "The police of the world…" Here was another question which accused the United States of acting as a villainous bully! It was another variation of "When did you stop beating your wife?" Here again, Powell could not give any credence to this charge in his reply. However, because it was a double question, he fielded them in order, with Cuba first.

  First of all, with respect to Cuba, it has always had a horrible human rights record. And rather than improving as we go into the 21st century, it's getting worse.

  Then, after a few supporting points about Cuba, he countered the accusation by just saying "No!"

  With respect to the United States being the policemen of the world, we do not seek war, we do not look for wars, we do not need wars, we do not want wars.

  So it went with every other question in the press conference. Powell listened carefully and answered as each of the reporters challenged him with multiple questions, until he came to an Australian reporter.

  Mr. Secretary, there seems to be some hopeful sounds coming out of your administration and North Korea on a settlement there. Do you think that there is likely to be a meeting soon between the administration and North Korea? And what sort of forum do you expect to attend? And how much do you think this is a flow-on from what happened in Iraq?

  Powell broke into a big grin.

  Very good. You're trying to get it all at once, aren't you? [5.3]

  Powel
l then did go on to provide an answer about U.S. relations with North Korea. As with all the others, he began his answer with the Key Word Buffer and then went on to state his position consistent with United States policy.

  In each case, the Key Word Buffer technique provides the major benefits of the Buffer:

  Identifies the Roman Column

  Condenses the ramble

  Levels the playing field

  Tees up the answer

  …all of which tees you up to learn how to answer in the next chapter.

  Chapter 6

  Provide the Answer

  (Martial Art: Balance)

  The Yin and Yang are two interlocking complementaries…Yin can represent anything in the universe as negativeness…Yang can represent anything as positiveness…Yin/Yang is one inseparable force of one unceasing interplay of movement.

  —Bruce Lee (1940-1973) [6.1]

  Here we are five chapters into this book, and we have yet to touch on how to provide an answer to tough questions. This delay is fully intentional. Results-driven people, like you, tend to rush to answer too soon, which can produce the negative results that befell President George H. Bush. During the delay, we've established the two vital prerequisites to the answer:

  Listen for the Roman Column

  Confirm the Roman Column to the questioner in the Buffer

  Conventional approaches to Q&A skills via public relations advisors, investor relations counselors, and media trainers merely list the potential questions and provide another parallel list of appropriate answers. This is a straightforward cause and effect or problem/solution approach, and is as necessary as balance is in the martial arts, but it skips the two critical prerequisites just noted. It is only when you have fulfilled these two vital requirements that are you ready to move on to the final inflection point in the Q&A scenario…the answer.