Those Who Ask Questions Drive Quality
PersonalI work with a colleague who finds something in almost every code review or text proofread. Almost every time. At first, that was exhausting – not because the remarks were wrong, but because they cost time. Time I hadn’t planned for.
In hindsight, that was exactly the point.
Many of the detailed improvements turned out to be valuable. And when he doesn’t find anything, that too is telling: another check confirming that a concept holds up. On top of that, there’s a side effect I had underestimated: a second person who truly works their way into a topic. Not superficially, but at the level of detail.
The First Reflex
Anyone who has worked in a field for a long time runs the risk of developing blind spots. You know the processes, you trust your own assessments – and you develop a fine sense for when someone is “just slowing things down.”
The problem: this reflex is often wrong.
People who question things, pick up on details, and formulate objections slow down a process in the short term. That costs time – especially when you believe you’ve already understood the topic. But that’s exactly their value: they compel you to take one more step back. On a factual basis, not out of personal resistance.
That is something fundamentally different from blocking.
Questioning Is Not the Same as Blocking
The difference is usually clearly recognizable:
Those who question bring arguments. Challenge assumptions. Point out details that were overlooked. Argue on the factual level – even if that means a concept needs reworking.
Those who block don’t contribute constructively. Criticize without offering alternatives. Argue from their own role or out of self-protection – not from the substance.
The former slow things down briefly. The latter prevent progress. The difference lies not in the outcome – “it’s going slower” – but in the direction: forward or nowhere.
Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School described something similar in her research on psychological safety: the best teams in hospitals reported more errors than worse teams – not because they made more, but because they had an atmosphere where that was possible. Problems became visible earlier and were resolved earlier.
What It Takes for This to Work
This kind of collaboration doesn’t happen by itself. It requires prerequisites.
Mutual trust. Not as an abstraction, but concretely: the willingness not to always put your own ideas first. To accept that someone else sees an aspect better. This grows over time and distributes organically – roles and responsibilities find themselves when given room.
Separation between the factual and the personal level. Many conflicts arise not from substantive differences, but from unclear or ambiguous communication. Obvious mistakes belong in the small circle first, not in the big meeting. Nobody is infallible – including yourself. Those who internalize that take criticism of their work less as an attack on their person.
Actively include quiet voices. At least a third of every team consists of people who get drowned out in large meetings. Not because they have nothing to say, but because the format isn’t made for them. They often deliver the most thoughtful input – if you actively ask for it. Send an agenda ahead of time, address people directly, create space.
Google’s Project Aristotle studied 180 teams over two years and delivered a clear finding: the most important factor for team performance was not who was on the team – not experience, not seniority, not team size. It was how the team interacted. Psychological safety, first and foremost.
A Successful Project Is a Team Result
That sounds obvious. But it isn’t always.
Anyone who leads a project inevitably has blind spots. You can’t keep all details in view, can’t take all perspectives, can’t see all risks simultaneously. That’s not a weakness – that’s a fact.
Those who accept this begin actively seeking feedback instead of waiting for it. Ask before decisions are finalized. Listen, even when the answer is hard to hear.
The alternative is more expensive: 85% of employees have, according to research, withheld important information at some point – out of fear of consequences. The silence costs more than the direct feedback.
What AI Cannot Replace in This
AI-powered code reviews and text analyses are now widespread. For many use cases, they work well – syntax errors, style issues, obvious logic gaps in manageable code blocks. That’s useful and saves time.
But there is a structural limit: AI works on the basis of the context provided to it. That context is always limited – and it is always fixed. A text excerpt, a code block, a document. What lies outside that window doesn’t exist for the AI.
A person who has worked in a field for years carries a different context. They know the history of a project. They know why a particular decision was made back then. They remember the mistake that nearly brought everything to a standstill two years ago. This implicit knowledge cannot be packed into a prompt.
This becomes especially noticeable with larger, cross-cutting concepts. An AI can evaluate a specific implementation – if the necessary context is available in sufficient quantity and quality. With more abstract questions, with architecture decisions, with concepts that touch multiple systems and teams, it hits its limits. Not because the models are bad, but because the context is missing that can only be built through lived experience.
The detail-oriented colleague who “always finds something” brings exactly that: accumulated knowledge, a sense for connections, the ability to place a decision within a larger frame. That’s not a competition against AI – it’s a complement that AI simply cannot provide.
Conclusion
Those who have people around them who question things factually, pay attention to details, and are reliable have something rare. Not an obstacle – a quality marker.
The question is not whether you tolerate such people on the team. The question is whether you’ve created an atmosphere in which they are heard.
And whether you actively ask.
Links
* Googles Project Aristotle: https://psychsafety.com/googles-project-aristotle
* Google re:Work: https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness
* LeaderFactor: https://www.leaderfactor.com/learn/project-aristotle-psychological-safety
* MIT Sloan Management Review: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-meetings-need-a-constructive-devils-advocate/
* Chief Learning Officer: https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2019/03/06/cultivating-constructive-devils-advocates/
* APM Blog: https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/introverts-how-to-engage-most-effectively-with-quieter-team-members/
* Parabol: https://www.parabol.co/blog/inclusive-meetings-introverts/
* Microsoft Research: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/bosu2015useful.pdf
Leave a Reply