I have for some time now been taking advanced French lessons once a week to try and move from a reasonable capability to fluency. This means discussing a variety of topics such as politics, economics and history, in French, for some 50 minutes - which is interesting if challenging! One thing my teacher talked about in French which I had not heard articulated before was the distinction between “how” and “why” personalities. This seems to me now I come to think about it an important differentiator, an appreciation of which can help in our professional working lives. Here is how AI characterises this behavioural distinction, of which as with many of these traits we can all display a mixture of both.
“Why” Personalities
• These are motivated by purpose. They’re driven by meaning, beliefs, or values.
• Their actions stem from internal motivations—why they do something matters more than how it’s done.
• They often ask big-picture questions like: “What’s the reason behind this?” or “Why are we doing this in the first place?”
• Traits might include: idealistic, introspective, principled, visionary.
“How” Personalities
• These are process-oriented. They focus on execution, method, and structure.
• They might not need a grand reason; what matters is doing things well and efficiently.
• They often ask: “How can we make this work?” or “How do we get from A to B?”
• Traits might include: practical, detail-oriented, methodical, reliable.
This could be described as mechanisms (how) and motivations (why). I know there are lots of ways personality can be characterised or described such as the “Big Five Personability traits” which are “a group of five characteristics used to study personality:
And in our professional working context this article 15 Characteristics of Professionals suggests that the following “are the qualities a person exemplifies in a business environment”:
These are all valid characterisations, but unlike the how and why distinction they don’t necessarily give you an insight into the potential behaviour of a fellow professional in, for example, a complex IT contract negotiation. When such discussions are running into difficulty for some reason, will the participants in seeking a solution exhibit “why” behaviour and look at the bigger picture and the benefits of the deal to both organisations, or simply focus on the “how” can we get this contract over the line with whatever language or compromises that may take. Both can be commendable traits, but focusing too much on one or the other can I suggest be dangerous and not in the interest of either party. Ignoring the bigger picture completely and being stuck completely in the details is not a good approach. Equally forgetting you need to find an acceptable way to capture any agreed high-level resolution and reduce it to writing in the contract and its related processes is also not a great idea.
I have this nagging feeling that as a lawyer (and maybe this is true of other professionals) we sometimes tend to focus on the “how” – the mechanics and the elegance of drafting solutions - rather than asking “why” and looking for the best way forward in the first place. See this Forbes article Understanding 'The Five Whys': How To Successfully Integrate This Tool Into Your Business which says “"The 5 Whys" were initially developed in the 1930s by Sakichi Toyada, founder of Toyota industries, in order to understand the reasoning behind developing new product features or manufacturing processes. The tool is now used within other manufacturing philosophies and processes like Kaizen, lean manufacturing and Six Sigma.” It states that “The method is extremely simple: whatever the statement, challenge or problem, you can identify the correct outcome or identify the underlying cause by asking "why?" five times. This helps the user understand the root of the issue and identify a counter-measure.” So in my stalled negotiation example the questions could include:
This “why” technique helps to focus on the bigger picture and find a solution. Sometimes even a change of scenery and personnel can help. One such negotiation I was involved with in a hotel in Park Lane London had indeed come to a grinding halt. Two senior executives from the parties joined the stalled negotiating teams in an effort to find a resolution. After an hour of continuing deadlock they left the meeting room (and its rather heated atmosphere) and indeed the hotel and went for a long walk round Hyde Park (without their technical supporting teams). They discussed why the two teams were stuck, assessed the impact failure would have on both parties, and considered various solutions which eventually resulted in a broad agreement on a possible way forward. However, it then took an immense effort by all the “how” colleagues involved to translate this agreed management solution into a working hypothesis that eventually became a deliverable contract.
I suspect on balance that using some combination of a questioning approach and a solution oriented one therefore works best. This demonstrates that you need to include both “why” and “how” people in a team and should recognise the different benefits they can bring. It reminds me of The Nine Belbin Team Roles, the well-known approach to recognising different team roles." Simply putting together a number of people and expecting them to work as a team is not enough." Dr Meredith Belbin’s research at Henley Business School “showed that the most successful teams were made up of a diverse mix of behaviours. To build high-performing teams, we need to represent each of the nine Belbin Team Role behaviours at the appropriate times.” These roles are:
As I relooked at these roles it struck me how the “thinking roles” tend to fall into the “why” and the “task roles” into the “how” categorisation. So, for example:
Plant - Tends to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways.
versus
Completer Finisher - Most effectively used at the end of tasks to polish and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control.
It seems to me in conclusion that both “comment” and “pourquoi” personalities (and a combination of both) have key roles in professional life. As the business consultant and writer Stephen R Covey observed “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities.”
“Why” Personalities
• These are motivated by purpose. They’re driven by meaning, beliefs, or values.
• Their actions stem from internal motivations—why they do something matters more than how it’s done.
• They often ask big-picture questions like: “What’s the reason behind this?” or “Why are we doing this in the first place?”
• Traits might include: idealistic, introspective, principled, visionary.
“How” Personalities
• These are process-oriented. They focus on execution, method, and structure.
• They might not need a grand reason; what matters is doing things well and efficiently.
• They often ask: “How can we make this work?” or “How do we get from A to B?”
• Traits might include: practical, detail-oriented, methodical, reliable.
This could be described as mechanisms (how) and motivations (why). I know there are lots of ways personality can be characterised or described such as the “Big Five Personability traits” which are “a group of five characteristics used to study personality:
- openness to experience, intellect, or imagination (imaginative/philosophical vs. uncreative/unintellectual)
- conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. haphazard/careless)
- extraversion or surgency (bold/energetic vs. shy/bashful)
- agreeableness (sympathetic/cooperative vs. cold/competitive)
- neuroticism or low emotional stability (moody/nervous vs. relaxed/calm).
And in our professional working context this article 15 Characteristics of Professionals suggests that the following “are the qualities a person exemplifies in a business environment”:
- Reliable
- Ethical behaviour
- Accountable
- Positive
- Focused
- Respectful
These are all valid characterisations, but unlike the how and why distinction they don’t necessarily give you an insight into the potential behaviour of a fellow professional in, for example, a complex IT contract negotiation. When such discussions are running into difficulty for some reason, will the participants in seeking a solution exhibit “why” behaviour and look at the bigger picture and the benefits of the deal to both organisations, or simply focus on the “how” can we get this contract over the line with whatever language or compromises that may take. Both can be commendable traits, but focusing too much on one or the other can I suggest be dangerous and not in the interest of either party. Ignoring the bigger picture completely and being stuck completely in the details is not a good approach. Equally forgetting you need to find an acceptable way to capture any agreed high-level resolution and reduce it to writing in the contract and its related processes is also not a great idea.
I have this nagging feeling that as a lawyer (and maybe this is true of other professionals) we sometimes tend to focus on the “how” – the mechanics and the elegance of drafting solutions - rather than asking “why” and looking for the best way forward in the first place. See this Forbes article Understanding 'The Five Whys': How To Successfully Integrate This Tool Into Your Business which says “"The 5 Whys" were initially developed in the 1930s by Sakichi Toyada, founder of Toyota industries, in order to understand the reasoning behind developing new product features or manufacturing processes. The tool is now used within other manufacturing philosophies and processes like Kaizen, lean manufacturing and Six Sigma.” It states that “The method is extremely simple: whatever the statement, challenge or problem, you can identify the correct outcome or identify the underlying cause by asking "why?" five times. This helps the user understand the root of the issue and identify a counter-measure.” So in my stalled negotiation example the questions could include:
- Why have we reached an impasse?
- Why are the parties not prepared to discuss solutions?
- Why are the negotiating teams not able to find a way forward?
This “why” technique helps to focus on the bigger picture and find a solution. Sometimes even a change of scenery and personnel can help. One such negotiation I was involved with in a hotel in Park Lane London had indeed come to a grinding halt. Two senior executives from the parties joined the stalled negotiating teams in an effort to find a resolution. After an hour of continuing deadlock they left the meeting room (and its rather heated atmosphere) and indeed the hotel and went for a long walk round Hyde Park (without their technical supporting teams). They discussed why the two teams were stuck, assessed the impact failure would have on both parties, and considered various solutions which eventually resulted in a broad agreement on a possible way forward. However, it then took an immense effort by all the “how” colleagues involved to translate this agreed management solution into a working hypothesis that eventually became a deliverable contract.
I suspect on balance that using some combination of a questioning approach and a solution oriented one therefore works best. This demonstrates that you need to include both “why” and “how” people in a team and should recognise the different benefits they can bring. It reminds me of The Nine Belbin Team Roles, the well-known approach to recognising different team roles." Simply putting together a number of people and expecting them to work as a team is not enough." Dr Meredith Belbin’s research at Henley Business School “showed that the most successful teams were made up of a diverse mix of behaviours. To build high-performing teams, we need to represent each of the nine Belbin Team Role behaviours at the appropriate times.” These roles are:
- The Social Roles - Resource Investigator, Teamworker, Co-ordinator
- The Thinking Roles - Plant, Monitor Evaluator, Specialist
- The Task Roles - Shaper, Implementer, Completer Finisher
As I relooked at these roles it struck me how the “thinking roles” tend to fall into the “why” and the “task roles” into the “how” categorisation. So, for example:
Plant - Tends to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways.
versus
Completer Finisher - Most effectively used at the end of tasks to polish and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control.
It seems to me in conclusion that both “comment” and “pourquoi” personalities (and a combination of both) have key roles in professional life. As the business consultant and writer Stephen R Covey observed “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities.”
RSS Feed
