Challenge with questions, not conclusions

Multipliers give people a mountain to climb; Diminishers tell people which step to take next.

Why it works

Handing someone a conclusion removes the cognitive work — and the ownership and learning — that comes with reaching it. Giving someone a stretch challenge that requires them to figure it out activates the generation effect: the process of struggling toward an answer builds both capability and commitment to the result. Multipliers also ask questions that extend thinking ("Have you considered X?") rather than questions that test knowledge ("Do you know X?"), which keeps the intellectual locus with the other person.

How to do it

1. When you know the answer, ask instead: "What do you think we should do here, and why?"
2. Frame challenges as questions with real uncertainty: "I don’t know how to solve X — I think you might."
3. Give people problems that are slightly above their current level; the gap produces growth, not anxiety.
4. Distinguish guiding questions (that open thinking) from gotcha questions (that test knowledge) — Multipliers use the former.

Evidence

Desirable difficulties research (Bjork) shows that challenges slightly above current ability produce faster learning than tasks within the current skill level. Wiseman’s Challenger discipline applies this to management: give the stretch problem, not the solved one. (mechanistic)

Desirable difficulties are documented in learning research; the application to managerial challenge-setting is mechanistically sound but not directly tested in management studies. Challenges that are too far above current level produce frustration rather than growth.

Sources

• Bjork (1994), Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings, in Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing (MIT Press)

Common mistake

Giving someone a stretch challenge without adequate resources, support, or safety to fail — the challenge works only when the person has enough confidence and backing to try something they might get wrong.