Over the years, I’ve been developing my approach to interacting professionally, to better understand needs, expectations, and requirements for a project, product, or system. Often its needed to capture tacit knowledge that exists in people’s heads but isn’t documented. Its important to avoid assumptions and ensure that decisions are based on accurate information, in order to identify constraints, risks, and opportunities early in a process.

The first time I came across the method it was an article on Socratic Irony which is kind of similar to Elicitation, yet different. Socratic Irony seeks to stimulate critical thinking, with the intent to to reveal contradictions, gaps, or weaknesses in someone’s reasoning. Where elicitation seeks to uncover facts, requirements, or tacit knowledge, with the intent to make hidden needs or knowledge explicit.

What they have in common is refraining from direct questions, but framing these questions in form of statements, which encourage people to elaborate. The reason behind this tactics is that questions often put the other person on the defensive, leaving them to wonder about my direction or my intentions. Statements, in contrast, reveal purpose while bypassing these defenses, creating a space where more is shared than was initially intended.

By introducing subtle provocation or carefully applied denial and allowing your counterpart to feel the passion behind your words, the interaction can be pushed even deeper, sparking reflection and uncovering insights far beyond what was initially offered.

Practical Examples

• Understanding an Uber Driver’s Working Conditions. As a light example, imagine you want to understand the working conditions of your Uber driver. Asking directly is likely to put them on the defensive, making it unlikely that they will share the information you seek. Now, instead, frame it as a provocative statement. For example, you could say, “I heard from a friend that Uber treats its employees better than Taxi companies.” This is likely to spark a reaction, prompting the driver to correct your impression. By adding subtle denials, such as, “I can’t believe they aren’t treating their employees better,” you create a sense of safety and encourage the driver to provide even more detailed and supportive information.
• Inquiring About an Unlisted Job. Another example is when calling a company where you plan on applying for an unlisted job. More often than not, I’ve experienced that people start out by explaining they do not have any open positions nor have time to discuss potential opportunities. Instead of asking directly for open positions, you can frame a statement expressing curiosity about what happens in the department and the interesting developments taking place. This approach highlights your genuine interest, and people naturally enjoy talking about their work and contributions. What happens is that you lower the defensive barrier and encourage the person to share insights about potential roles, internal processes, or upcoming opportunities that they might not have mentioned otherwise.

In both examples, the key is using statements rather than questions to elicit information. By carefully framing what you say, you create a sense of safety you’ll usually only find among friends and invite the other party to provide more honest, detailed, and useful information than they might have offered in response to direct questioning.

Applying the Approach in Work Situations

This method is just as powerful in a professional setting. When discussing project challenges, performance issues, or strategic decisions, framing your inquiry as a statement can unlock richer dialogue. For example, instead of asking, “Why are these deadlines being missed?” you might say, “It seems like these deadlines are particularly challenging this quarter.” This shifts the conversation from defensiveness to shared observation.

Similarly, subtle provocation can stimulate creative thinking and honest feedback. A statement like, “I’ve noticed our reporting process seems to slow down decision-making,” invites colleagues to reflect and provide insight without feeling attacked. Carefully applied denial; such as, “I find it hard to believe we couldn’t streamline this further”; can push discussions deeper, encouraging team members to clarify, defend, or expand on their positions in ways that reveal more actionable information.

Using this approach consistently can transform work interactions, fostering openness, collaboration, and a richer understanding of challenges, opportunities, and perspectives within your team. It’s about creating a space where people feel safe enough to speak honestly, yet stimulated enough to go beyond surface-level responses.

Prioritising Safety in the Workplace

The principle of statements over questions applies equally to discussions around work safety. Safety is not only about rules and procedures; it is also about creating an environment where concerns can be voiced openly without fear of blame or reprisal. For instance, instead of asking, “Are people following the safety protocols?” you might say, “I’ve noticed some areas where our safety protocols are challenging to follow consistently.” This subtle shift frames the topic as a shared observation rather than an interrogation, encouraging employees to provide honest feedback and highlight real risks. By combining statements with empathetic acknowledgement or gentle provocation, you create a space where team members feel secure enough to report hazards, suggest improvements, and collectively reinforce a culture of safety.

Putting Structure to Elicitation

I like to approach elicitation and structure from the perspective of project development, although the underlying framework can be applied in many contexts. Each step is designed to maximize the quality of information gathered and ensure tacit knowledge is captured effectively.

• Identify Stakeholders. The first step in elicitation is identifying all key stakeholders; those who will use the product, contribute to its development, or be impacted by it. This includes users, developers, project managers, and customers. Knowing who is involved is critical for elicitation because each stakeholder brings unique perspectives, experiences, and tacit knowledge. Engaging them early ensures that diverse insights are available when defining requirements.
• Gather Requirements. With stakeholders identified, elicitation focuses on understanding what they truly need from the system or product. This involves uncovering both functional requirements (what the system should do) and non-functional requirements (how it should perform). Using techniques like interviews, surveys, and group discussions, the elicitor can draw out information that is often unspoken or undocumented, ensuring that tacit knowledge is captured and understood.
• Prioritize Requirements. During elicitation, not all requirements are equally critical. Prioritization helps focus the discussion on what matters most. By categorizing requirements as “Must-have”, “Should-have”, “Could-have” or “Won’t-have” the elicitor guides stakeholders to articulate their most important needs first. This step also uncovers trade-offs and constraints that might otherwise remain hidden, providing a clearer picture of what is truly essential.
• 4. Categorize Feasibility. Finally, assessing feasibility allows the elicitor to distinguish between what is realistic, what can be deferred, and what is impossible. This step ensures that expectations are managed and that stakeholders’ tacit knowledge about practical limitations is incorporated. By addressing feasibility, the elicitor can capture implicit understanding of technical, resource, and organizational constraints that influence project decisions.

Risks and Boundaries

While using statements instead of direct questions can be highly effective for elicitation, it is essential to exercise caution. Overplaying feigned ignorance or subtle provocation can backfire, making interactions feel manipulative or disingenuous. When this happens, stakeholders may become defensive, withdraw, or provide less candid information, which undermines the purpose of elicitation.

It is also important to recognize the sensitivity of the context. In high-stakes or emotionally charged situations, relying solely on statements may not be appropriate. In these cases, a carefully placed gentle question can be more effective, allowing the conversation to remain respectful and balanced while still encouraging meaningful insight.

Setting clear boundaries is equally critical. The goal of elicitation is to uncover hidden needs, insights, and tacit knowledge without coercing or pressuring participants. Being aware of how your tone, phrasing, and body language are received can prevent misunderstandings and help maintain trust.

Finally, continually monitoring the response of your counterpart is vital. If resistance, frustration, or suspicion arises, it signals the need to adjust your approach by softening statements, offering clarifications, or switching to a more neutral questioning style. Mastering this balance between subtle provocation and sensitivity is what makes elicitation both ethical and effective.