I get your point. And at the same time I am thinking that I work with people where I know that of A is very detail oriented and if says he is ready then he means 100 percent and he has checked carefully - twice.
Whereas B is very good at ideas but sometimes a bit too fast on the execution and not always writing down all he has to remember so there are often details that have been forgotten.
So for A asking once would be enough. For B I would usually ask more into details (obviously stacking).
How do you get around that? Accepting that some things will be forgotten and then we handle it along the way or?
Great reflection — and such a real-world scenario. Thanks for sharing it.
You’re absolutely right: different team members need different levels of follow-up. The article isn’t about avoiding detailed questions altogether — it’s about how we sequence them.
The challenge with question stacking is that it often comes before the other person even has a chance to respond. It’s not asking for depth — it’s signaling doubt before trust has space to build.
In your example with person B, it sounds like you're asking more after hearing their initial response, which is a much more effective approach. That’s where follow-up questions with curiosity (rather than repetition or urgency) can really help.
So the shift isn't about asking less — it’s about asking more intentionally: 🟡 Pause.
🟡 Let the first answer land.
🟡 Then go deeper if needed, based on what you hear.
This shows presence, not pressure — and still gets you the clarity you're looking for.
Would love to hear how you’ve found that balance in practice!
I get your point. And at the same time I am thinking that I work with people where I know that of A is very detail oriented and if says he is ready then he means 100 percent and he has checked carefully - twice.
Whereas B is very good at ideas but sometimes a bit too fast on the execution and not always writing down all he has to remember so there are often details that have been forgotten.
So for A asking once would be enough. For B I would usually ask more into details (obviously stacking).
How do you get around that? Accepting that some things will be forgotten and then we handle it along the way or?
Great reflection — and such a real-world scenario. Thanks for sharing it.
You’re absolutely right: different team members need different levels of follow-up. The article isn’t about avoiding detailed questions altogether — it’s about how we sequence them.
The challenge with question stacking is that it often comes before the other person even has a chance to respond. It’s not asking for depth — it’s signaling doubt before trust has space to build.
In your example with person B, it sounds like you're asking more after hearing their initial response, which is a much more effective approach. That’s where follow-up questions with curiosity (rather than repetition or urgency) can really help.
So the shift isn't about asking less — it’s about asking more intentionally: 🟡 Pause.
🟡 Let the first answer land.
🟡 Then go deeper if needed, based on what you hear.
This shows presence, not pressure — and still gets you the clarity you're looking for.
Would love to hear how you’ve found that balance in practice!