Asking why

Why the why?

Anything without reason is meaningless.

When going through the decision-making process in government, we, ourselves, or residents may ask, ‘why are we doing this?’ Typically, a rehearsed, somewhat reasonable response is given. This answer is typically deemed sufficient and we move along to the next issue.

Have we dared to ask why twice? Three times? How about five times? When we understand “why” we are doing something, it gives us a better understanding of the direction we are headed. Our “why” gives guidance to our “what.”

Only asking ‘why’ once is no longer acceptable in a fast-paced, ever-moving, innovative 21st century. It is important to take steps to understand the whys behind the why if success is the desired outcome. The further we dig, the more clarity comes for us to understand the purpose of any program, idea or process being implemented. Furthermore, asking why allows us to seek better understanding, rather than defend a current position.

This practice is becoming more commonly used by organizations and businesses across the world.

Similarly in the world of scholarship and academia, researchers start with questions. They create a methodology to test a series of hypotheses and later present the results. They also look towards other similar research for reference and evidence to support their findings. Then, the tests are done over again. Iteration is a reason that makes asking “why” important.

Here’s an example: An elected official wants to increase their police force by 50 more officers.

Let’s ask the first why.

They might say, “I want a safer community.” Fair answer.

Let’s dig deeper. “Why do you want a safer community?”

They might answer, “I want the residents to feel comfortable in their homes and in the community without fear of harm or danger.”

Again, fair answer. At this point we can continue to dig deeper to understand their line of thinking. We can ask a series of questions that might lead to different conclusions. The ones I would ask are “Why are police officers the answer to eliminate fear among residents?” or “Why is it important for residents to live without fear?”

The first question challenges the elected official to consider whether or not adding police officers is the necessary solution to address residents’ fear and lack of a sense of safety. The second question challenges the elected official to think deeper, and hopefully, more critically, about their personal, political and the community’s values.

Hopefully, this line of questioning will result in more sound judgment in the elected official’s approach to address safety in the community they represent.

While government has traditionally started with solutions, we have often faired better when we have begun with questions. When government takes the due diligence to carefully consider the root of problems, we properly, efficiently and financially propose better solutions.