Why-Before-Convention Test
Question inherited rules before letting them constrain a decision
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 88%
The Why-Before-Convention Test is a compact decision rule for inherited practices. When someone says a place, profession, or team works in a particular way, state the convention and ask why it must remain that way. Seek the current rationale rather than treating age or repetition as proof. If the rule protects a real constraint, preserve it or work within it. If it is merely habit, define a better approach and test whether it serves the intended outcome more effectively. Enninful says his mother taught him to keep asking why in any situation and to question why things could not change. The method converts reflexive compliance into a short cycle of clarification, distinction, and responsible experimentation.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01A standard way of working is not automatically the best way
- 02Asking why exposes whether a rule has a live rationale
- 03Inherited constraints should be tested before they are obeyed
- 04A challenge is useful only when it leads to a better alternative
How to run it
- 1
Name the convention
Repeat the rule in plain language so everyone is discussing the same constraint.
Pro tip Use the actual wording people rely on, such as 'we do things like this.'
- 2
Ask why
Request the reason the convention exists and why it still applies to the present situation.
Pro tip Ask with curiosity before arguing for a change.
Watch out A confrontational question can make people defend a habit they might otherwise examine.
- 3
Classify the constraint
Determine whether the answer reflects a necessary boundary, credible evidence, or inherited habit.
Pro tip Treat safety, legal, and irreversible-risk constraints more cautiously than preferences.
Watch out Do not dismiss a rule before understanding the harm it may prevent.
- 4
Offer a better route
If the rationale is weak, propose a change tied to the outcome the rule was meant to serve.
Pro tip Make the alternative concrete enough to test.
Watch out Questioning without an alternative can become performative contrarianism.
- 5
Test and learn
Run a proportionate experiment and compare the result with the old approach.
Pro tip Use the evidence to update the convention rather than treating one challenge as permanent proof.
In the wild
A magazine team says a particular audience cannot support a cover because that is the established industry view. The editor asks why, examines whether the belief has current evidence, proposes a representative cover, and compares the audience and commercial response with the old assumption.
→ An inherited claim becomes a testable decision rather than an automatic veto.
Common mistakes
Treating every rule as foolish
Some conventions encode real constraints, so the question should uncover the rationale rather than presume there is none.
Stopping at the question
A useful challenge produces an alternative and a test, not only disagreement.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for situations where the main objection is that things have always been done a certain way.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when a rule protects safety, law, or an irreversible risk and has not yet been properly understood.
From the transcript
“when you go into a place any situation and they say you know we do things like this oh things you should say why”
“why does it have to be like this why can't we change”
From the episode
Editor Of Vogue (Edward Enninful OBE): How To Become No.1 In Your Industry Against All The Odds!