The question that cuts through every explanation

Everyone has a reason. Not everyone gets the prize.

Think about the last time you were puzzled by someone’s behavior: a colleague’s decision, a corporate announcement, a political move, even a personal interaction. You probably asked yourself why they did it.

But there’s an older, sharper question that might have served you better.

Cui bono. To whose benefit?

Most conversations rely on familiar questions. “Why did you do that?” reveals explanations and justifications. “What for?” —a question I’ve explored before— uncovers stated goals and purpose.

But there’s a third question that completes the set: Who benefits from this?

The Three-Question Hierarchy

“Why” questions get you reasons. “Because I’m tired.” “Because it seemed like a good idea.” “Because that’s how we’ve always done it.” These tell you about someone’s internal state but they’re often incomplete or misleading.

“What for” questions get you stated purposes. “To improve efficiency.” “To help the team.” “To serve the public good.” These sound more substantial, but they’re still what someone wants you to believe.

“Who benefits” questions get you evidence. They cut through the noise of motivation and stated purpose to reveal the actual stakes. Follow the advantage, and you’ll understand the real game being played.

It Works Everywhere

A dinner invitation? Sure, hospitality is real. But who benefits from having you there? Maybe they need a buffer with difficult relatives. Maybe they’re hoping you’ll introduce them to your boss.

A corporate restructuring? The stated goal is always “efficiency” or “customer focus.” But who actually gains power, budget, or influence?

A political proposal? Rhetoric talks about the public good. But ask: if this passes, who wins? The answer will tell you more than a thousand position papers.

Why This Works

The brilliance of cui bono is that it sidesteps the entire theater of stated intentions. While everyone else is debating whether someone “really meant” what they said, you’re already looking at the scoreboard.

Benefits don’t lie. They leave tracks clearer than words, harder to erase.

People misstate their motivations; sometimes deliberately, often without knowing it. They spin their purposes to sound noble, logical, or fair.

But benefits? Benefits are observable. They leave tracks.

When you ask cui bono, you’re not guessing at motives. You’re looking at results. You’re following the money, the power, the access. You’re noticing who actually comes out ahead when the dust settles.

This works across every scale. The colleague who volunteers for a high-visibility project “to help the team” might genuinely believe that’s their motivation. But who gets the career boost? The politician championing education reform might truly care about children. But whose districts get the new funding, and whose allies get the contracts?

The Real Power

Understanding who benefits doesn’t mean every action is selfish or every motive corrupt. Rather it strips away the fog of explanation and reveal what’s really at stake.

There’s something liberating about this approach. It frees you from having to be a mind reader or parse elaborate justifications. You don’t need to figure out if someone is lying, self-deluded, or completely sincere. The benefits speak for themselves.

Next time you find yourself puzzled, try skipping the guesswork. Skip the story-spinning.

Ask the question: Cui bono? To whose benefit?

And when it’s your own action under the spotlight, do you know who stands to gain? The hardest part might be applying this lens to your own choices, especially when you’ve built a narrative around serving others or pursuing principles. But that discomfort is usually a sign you’re onto something important.

Cui bono doesn’t make you cynical. It makes you honest about how the world actually works.

You’re not guessing anymore. You’re just watching who wins.

==

On Business Viability and Human Dignity: Questions for Reflection

The following questions emerge from and refer back to the arguments made in my article When Business “Viability” Comes at Human Cost. They highlight the key ethical issues the article addresses.

 

On Work and Human Dignity

  • What does it say about us that we accept, and even expect, that certain kinds of work will not support the people who perform it?
  • Do we truly believe that all work has dignity if some work is structured in a way that makes survival difficult?
  • Is it ever justifiable to treat people as disposable means to an end in a market economy?

On Business Viability and Responsibility

  • Should a business be considered viable if it can only survive by paying workers less than they need to live?
  • Who truly bears the costs when wages are too low—workers, taxpayers, communities, or businesses themselves in the long run?
  • What might happen if we expanded our definition of business success beyond just profitability?

On Power and Decision-Making

  • Who decides what counts as a “fair” wage, and on what basis?
  • Why do we treat investors as knowingly taking risks but not low-wage workers? Should workers have more access to financial transparency?
  • What role do consumers play in shaping wage structures through their purchasing decisions?

On Economic Assumptions and Possibilities

  • What economic assumptions underlie the idea that raising wages threatens business viability?
  • What innovations or adaptations might emerge if businesses could no longer rely on below-living wages?
  • How have past labor reforms—such as the end of child labor or the 40-hour workweek—challenged and ultimately reshaped economic expectations?
  • Are we truly choosing between low-wage jobs or no jobs at all, or are there other options we have yet to fully explore?

On Ethics and Social Responsibility

  • What does fairness look like in an economic community?
  • Do businesses have an obligation to contribute to the social well-being of the context in which they operate? If so, how should that be defined?
  • How should we balance individual responsibility (workers negotiating wages, businesses seeking profit) with collective responsibility (ensuring a just economic system)?

The power of ‘What For?’ Questions: Rethinking Conversation

You’re asking the wrong question—and it’s holding you back.

The power of ‘what for’ questions offers a transformative alternative. In conversations, we’re often inclined to ask ‘why’ to understand someone’s motivations or reasoning. We want to know what led them to a certain choice or how they came to hold a particular belief. “Why?” is so ingrained in our thinking that it almost feels like a reflex, especially in moments when we’re seeking clarity or alignment. Yet, while “Why?” pulls us backward, making us trace origins and reasons, there’s another question that can sometimes unlock even more meaningful answers.

When I first started thinking about this distinction, I assumed “Why?” was always the deeper question. But the more I worked with leaders and reflected on conversations, the more I noticed that “Why?” often kept us circling the past instead of building toward the future. That’s when I started asking, “What for?”—and the difference surprised me.

Consider the question “What for?”—a question that directs our attention to the future, inviting responses centered around purpose, goals, and intentions. Unlike “Why?”, which often demands an answer that begins with “because,” “What for?” skips the backward-facing detective work of “because” and leaps straight into the architect’s blueprint of “so as to” or “with a view to.” It’s less Sherlock Holmes and more Frank Gehry.

In many ways, this distinction between “Why?” and “What for?” mirrors the difference between asking “Where are you coming from?” and “Where are you going?” The first question looks back at origins and reasons, while the second looks ahead to direction and purpose. Let’s explore why “What for?” might be the question that opens up more purposeful, forward-thinking conversations.

The Purposeful Shift from “Why?” to “What for?”

When we ask “Why?”, we’re usually looking for causes. “Why did you choose this direction?” “Why do you believe that?” This line of questioning digs up the motivations and histories behind people’s actions and beliefs. And while this backward look can be valuable, it may not always reveal where someone hopes to go next.

Asking “What for?” is a small shift with a big impact. Instead of grounding a conversation in the past, “What for?” directs it toward the future. For example, in a coaching context, asking “Why do you want this promotion?” might reveal motivations like ambition or a sense of obligation. But asking “What do you want the promotion for?” could invite a different answer, perhaps touching on the desire to lead, the vision of making an impact, or the goal of developing new skills. The response here isn’t simply about motivation—it’s about purpose and direction.

What for?” might feel like a minor adjustment, but it’s the conversational equivalent of turning your GPS from “history mode” to “destination preview.”

Practical Applications: Shifting Conversations Forward

Here’s how “What for?” can make a difference in a few scenarios:

In Executive Coaching

When a client is setting new goals, asking “What for?” helps them to envision the purpose behind those goals. Instead of grounding their thinking in past achievements or past struggles, it encourages them to articulate the future impact they’re hoping to create. This forward look can lead to greater clarity and motivation.

In Team Meetings

When a team faces a decision point, asking “Why are we choosing this approach?” could yield a list of past-oriented reasons, often grounded in what has or hasn’t worked before. Asking “What are we choosing this approach for?” invites the team to discuss the outcomes they aim to achieve, keeping the conversation focused on objectives and end results.

In Personal Conversations

Even in everyday discussions, shifting to “What for?” can open up new perspectives. Instead of asking a friend “Why did you decide to move?” try asking “What are you hoping to gain from the move?” This small change can reveal the goals, dreams, or opportunities they’re looking forward to, making the conversation more about their aspirations than their past.

The Different Impacts of “Why?” and “What for?”

Both questions have their place, and each has the potential to lead to important insights. “Why?” helps us understand context and background, which can sometimes be essential. But “What for?” brings us to a different layer of understanding, one that speaks to vision and purpose. While “Why?” can help explain what led to today, “What for?” can help shape tomorrow.

In conversations, as in life, both questions matter. “Why?” connects us to our roots, grounding us in what’s brought us here. But it’s “What for?” that pulls us forward, aligning us with the goals and intentions we often overlook. The balance between them is where meaningful progress lives. So, the next time you’re tempted to ask “Why?”, pause for a moment. Maybe it’s time to ask, “What for?” instead—and see where it takes you.

An Invitation to Experiment

Rather than simply deciding that “What for?” is better than “Why?”, think of this as an experiment in how we approach conversations. Try this: In your next meeting or conversation, pause before asking “Why?” and reframe it as “What for?” Notice how the responses shift. Does the person lean into their goals instead of their reasons? Or try flipping it—ask yourself both questions about a current challenge and compare the answers. What does “Why?” reveal about your past, and how does “What for?” shape your vision of the future?

By leveraging the strengths of each, we can have richer, more purposeful conversations. You might find that each question brings out a unique perspective, but that “What for?” invites others (and yourself) to connect more deeply with where you’re heading.

==

Go HERE for more Essays.

15 questions about learning

  1. Do you know?

  2. Have you ever said (or thought), “I’m too old to ____”?

  3. Were you right about that?

  4. Who has taught you the most in the last two years?

  5. Last ten?

  6. Do they know you regard them in this way?

  7. Would it benefit them to know?

  8. Who or what has been an unexpected teacher?

  9. Would you consider yourself an expert?

  10. Are you striving to be seen as one?

  11. Do you wish to unlearn something?

  12. What have you learned from experience that studying could never have conveyed?

  13. What do you know of sensuous knowledge?

  14. What’s a film that made you see the world anew?

  15. When did you last feel a sense of awe?

 

==
source: https://houseofbeautifulbusiness.com/read/learning-to-survive

When in doubt, draw a distinction

By far the most substantial piece of content I read recently is from Jay Rosen. He is a press critic who writes about the media and politics. He is a professor at the School of Journalism at New York University.

Here is how it starts:

And here are some of the distinctions he draws in this Twitter thread:

  • Public vs. audience
  • Journalism vs. the media
  • Truth-seeking vs. refuge-seeking
  • Political vs. politicized
  • Issues vs. troubles
  • Ritual vs. transmission
  • Expect vs. predict
  • Subscription vs. membership

He says that

For distinctions to work, the terms have to be sufficiently close that prying them apart clears space for thought. If I write, “bending is not the same as breaking,” well, who said it was? That one is going nowhere. But “naked is not the same as nude” is an idea with legs.

It’s not just semantics. Well, it is, but it’s more than that. It’s a show of clarity of ideas in your field of endeavor. In his case, it’s media and politics.

And it occurs in all fields.

Just last week, I bumped into a few more instances:

  1. My friend and colleague Ed Carvalho invited us to draw a distinction between intelligence and intellect;
  2. And then this one in the Harvard Business Review between habit and routine:

When we fail at forming new patterns of behavior, we often blame ourselves, rather than the bad advice we read from someone who doesn’t really understand what can and cannot be a habit.
A habit is a behavior done with little or no thought, while a routine involves a series of behaviors frequently —and intentionally— repeated. A behavior has to be a regularly performed routine before it can become a habit at all.
The problem is that many of us try to skip the “routine” phase.

There are other distinctions that Rosen does not discuss in his thread, including

  • Lying vs. bullshitting
  • Experience vs. expertise
  • Exit, voice, and loyalty
  • Information overload vs. filter failure

Anyone who took part in one of my leadership development programs will have heard me discuss exit, voice, “loyalty”/conformity, and sabotage as a way to distinguish how different people react differently to finding themselves in conflict situations.

The take-aways from this piece?

  1. When in doubt, draw a distinction;
  2. Doing so is a way to manifest that you are a thinker – that you don’t take things at face value but you do reflect on them and come out with your own thoughts;
  3. Drawing distinctions is also a manifestation of where you put your attention, that is, what your field of endeavor really is.

And since a lot of readers of this newsletter are managers then it begs the question: are your distinctions mostly about the domain of expertise that preceded your becoming a manager or are they about management itself?


The content of this post is an edited version of an entry in my free, monthly newsletter in which I share my own writing as well as links to articles and research on management, leadership, and strategy. It’s easy to subscribe… and unsubscribe.

Questions for the end of the day

… to be documented in the journal you should keep.

Where did my eyes linger today?

Where was I blind?

Where was I hurt without anyone noticing?

What did I learn today?

What did I read?

What new thoughts visited me?

What differences did I notice in those closest to me?

Whom did I neglect?

Where did I neglect myself?

What did I begin today that might endure?

How were my conversations?

What did I do today for the poor and excluded?

Did I remember the dead today?

Where could I have exposed myself to the risk of something different?

Where did I allow myself to receive love?

With whom did I feel most myself?

What reached me today? How deep did it imprint?

Who saw me today?

What visitations had I from the past and from the future?

What did I avoid today?

From the evidence – why was I given this day?

– John O’Donoghue, To Bless the Space Between Us

 

 

 

A calling, a lifetime dedication to an audacious project, and the interview question

Towering above the nearby blocks in the Eixample district of Barcelona, the Sagrada Família is unmistakable for its colossal scale and its convention-defying architecture.

Looking like a Gothic cathedral seen through a surreal fairytale filter, this is the most audacious project of the influential Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852-1926). More than 135 years after construction began and long after Gaudí’s death it is quite visibly still a work in progress.

Stone Cut is a brief profile of the Japanese sculptor Etsuro Sotoo, who, for 40 years, has made finishing Gaudí’s would-be masterpiece his life’s work. “I was awakened by a piece of stone.”

This last sentence is intriguing.

I say we don’t really know who someone is until we know their story; until we know what brought them here.

Come to think of it, that might be the best way to start a job interview.

Not unlike what doctors and lawyers do:

So, tell us, what brings you here today?

[Photo by Naomi Hutchinson on Unsplash ]

See also

Post-covid19 job interview

Questions and their purpose

 

 

 

 

 

What is a BIG question?

It’s not easy to say precisely what makes a question big; but we can at least give a few examples from the history of philosophy so that we have some idea what we’re talking about:

  • What is the meaning of life?
  • What is the nature of ultimate reality?
  • What is Being?
  • Is there a god?
  • Is there some sort of cosmic justice?
  • What is the self ?
  • Does a person’s self (mind, soul) persist after death?
  • Do we have free will?
  • Why be moral?
  • What is the good life for a human being?
  • What are the foundations of our knowledge?
  • What are the limits to what we can know?
  • What is truth?
  • What is the good?
  • What is justice?
  • What is virtue?
  • What is beauty?
  • What is life?
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?

More here.

How can management theories guide life decisions?

On the last day of class, Clayton Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor, asks his students to turn those theoretical lenses on themselves to find cogent answers to three questions:

First, how can I be sure that I’ll be happy in my career?

Second, how can I be sure that my relationships with my spouse and my family become an enduring source of happiness?

Third, how can I be sure I’ll stay out of jail?

Though the last question sounds lighthearted, it’s not. Two of the 32 people in my Rhodes scholar class spent time in jail. Jeff Skilling of Enron fame was a classmate of mine at HBS. These were good guys—but something in their lives sent them off in the wrong direction.

As the students discuss the answers to these questions, I open my own life to them as a case study of sorts, to illustrate how they can use the theories from our course to guide their life decisions.

More at How will you measure your life?