When questions become weapons: power, performance, and the illusion of dialogue at work

In many organisations, conversations about performance and delivery are framed as rational, evidence-based, and necessary. Managers ask questions. Staff respond. On the surface, this appears to reflect good leadership practice: clarity, accountability, and inquiry. Yet, beneath this veneer, something more complex and often more corrosive can unfold.

What looks like curiosity can, at times, be a form of control.

The ancient insight from Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations remains strikingly relevant. He warned that not all questions are asked in good faith. Some are designed not to understand, but to win, destabilise, or expose. Today, this dynamic is mirrored in what is commonly referred to as “sealioning”, a relentless demand for proof or explanation that exhausts rather than enlightens.

In organisational life, this behaviour often shows up in performance conversations, particularly where there are concerns about non-delivery. The consequences are subtle but significant: erosion of trust, diminished psychological safety, and a breakdown in genuine dialogue.

The performance conversation that isn’t

Consider a familiar scenario.

A manager calls a team member into a meeting to discuss missed deadlines. The manager begins with what appears to be a neutral inquiry:

• “Can you explain why this wasn’t delivered?”
• “What exactly do you mean by ‘resource constraints’?”
• “Can you provide evidence for that?”
• “What specifically prevented you from escalating earlier?”

Each question, in isolation, is reasonable. Together, repeated and layered, they can become overwhelming.

The employee responds, clarifies, explains. Yet the questions continue. Definitions are unpacked. Context is interrogated. Assumptions are challenged. The conversation becomes less about understanding and more about scrutiny.

From the manager’s perspective, this may feel like due diligence. From the employee’s perspective, it can feel like being cross-examined.

This dynamic aligns with what organisational psychologist Chris Argyris described as defensive routines. In organisational learning, individuals often adopt behaviours that protect themselves from embarrassment or threat, while simultaneously preventing genuine learning. Managers may believe they are being rigorous. In reality, they may be reinforcing a system where people become guarded, cautious, and less open.

Hidden power dynamic

At the heart of these interactions is power.

A manager holds formal authority. This includes performance ratings, career progression, and access to opportunities. This asymmetry shapes how questions are received. What might be a neutral question between peers can feel loaded when coming from someone who controls outcomes.

Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety is instructive here. She defines it as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. In psychologically safe environments, people can admit mistakes, ask for help, and speak candidly.

However, when questioning becomes relentless or adversarial, even subtly, psychological safety erodes. Employees begin to anticipate judgement rather than understanding. They prepare defences rather than insights.

This is where the parallel to sealioning becomes clear. The manager may frame their approach as curiosity or thoroughness. Yet, the cumulative effect is exhaustion and withdrawal.

When inquiry masks control

Management literature often celebrates inquiry as a leadership strength. Edgar Schein, in his work on humble inquiry, emphasises the importance of asking questions driven by genuine curiosity and a desire to build relationship.

But not all inquiry is humble.

In performance conversations, questions can become:

• Leading
• Layered
• Relentless
• Performative

This creates what Michel Foucault might describe as a microphysics of power. These are subtle, everyday interactions through which control is exercised and reinforced.

The manager may not intend harm. They may believe they are being fair, objective, and thorough. Yet intent does not negate impact.

Cost to delivery and culture

Ironically, these dynamics often undermine the very outcomes they are meant to improve.

Research in organisational behaviour consistently shows that environments characterised by high control and low trust lead to reduced discretionary effort, lower creativity, increased risk aversion, and withholding of information.

Daniel Kahneman’s work on cognitive load offers further insight. Under pressure, particularly when individuals feel scrutinised, cognitive capacity narrows. People become less able to think systemically or creatively. They default to safe, minimal responses.

In other words, the more a manager interrogates, the less useful information they may actually receive.

Recognising the pattern

For both managers and professionals, the first step is awareness.

Some signals that a conversation has shifted from inquiry to interrogation include:

• Repeated requests for clarification that do not build on previous answers
• A focus on definitions rather than meaning or outcomes
• A noticeable imbalance in speaking time
• The employee becoming increasingly brief, cautious, or disengaged
• A lack of forward movement toward solutions

At this point, the conversation is no longer serving its intended purpose.

Reclaiming genuine dialogue

The alternative is not to avoid accountability or difficult conversations. It is to approach them differently.

At its core, it is the leader’s responsibility to hold the conversation in good faith. This means actively maintaining curiosity without judgement, creating conditions where understanding is possible, and ensuring that inquiry does not become interrogation. The tone, structure, and intent of the conversation sit with the manager.

For Leaders

1. Shift from proving to understanding - Enter with genuine curiosity and good faith, assuming there is something to understand rather than expose. This supports psychological safety (Amy Edmondson) and suspends judgement.
2. Be intentional with questioning - Name your intent explicitly, limit unnecessary depth, and avoid rapid or layered questioning that creates pressure. Not every statement requires full deconstruction.
3. Balance inquiry with advocacy - Share your own perspective as well as asking questions (Chris Argyris), and listen to understand rather than to respond. Pause and reflect back what you have heard.
4. Focus on the system, not just the individual - Explore what in the environment, process, or resourcing contributed (Peter Senge), and check that you have reached a shared understanding.
5. Create closure and co-create next steps - Summarise, move toward action, involve the professional in defining what happens next, and acknowledge the effort and constraints they were working within.

For Professionals

1. Recognise unproductive patterns and stay grounded - Not all questions need detailed answers, particularly if they are repetitive or circular. Maintaining composure changes the dynamic, as it often relies on emotional depletion.
2. Separate intent from impact - If the tone becomes difficult, address it constructively: "I want to be transparent and helpful. At the moment I am finding it hard to track what will be most useful." This maintains the relationship while naming the experience.
3. Elevate and redirect -When the conversation gets stuck in detail, move up a level: "Stepping back, there are three factors driving this" or frame it as a systems issue (Gregory Bateson). Then shift from explanation to resolution by redirecting toward outcomes.
4. Offer solutions early - Do not wait to be asked. Pair your explanation with options: "There were two main issues. I have three options to address them, can I walk you through those?" Action supports sensemaking (Karl Weick) and moves the conversation from scrutiny to progress.
5. Know when to stop engaging - Some questions do not deserve full answers (Aristotle). A simple "I don't know or have any more to add" can redirect the conversation without escalating it.

A more human approach to performance

At its best, a performance conversation is a space for shared sense-making. It acknowledges complexity, context, and humanity.

Peter Senge reminds us that organisations are systems, not machines. Delivery issues rarely sit with individuals alone. They emerge from structures, processes, and interactions.

When managers rely on relentless questioning, they risk reducing complex systems to individual fault. When professionals become defensive, they may miss opportunities for learning.

The opportunity lies in moving beyond both.

Closing reflection

Aristotle’s warning still holds. Not every question deserves an answer. Not every inquiry is an act of curiosity.

In modern workplaces, the challenge is more subtle. It is not about overt manipulation, but about everyday patterns of interaction that quietly shape culture.

When questioning becomes a tool for control rather than understanding, it undermines both performance and trust. Recognising this dynamic is the first step toward changing it.

Better conversations are possible. They require less interrogation, more intention, and a willingness to engage not just with the work, but with the people doing it.