Tool: The Ladder of Inference
You are nearly ready for the conversation. Before you start, take a moment to consider how you reached the conflict in the first place. This will help you understand the other person's perspective and reach a solution.
The Ladder of Inference helps us understand why some conflicts, disagreements, and misunderstandings happen. It was created by organisational psychologist Chris Argyris in 1970 and Peter Senge used this model in his well-known book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Here we use a shorter version of the model for simplicity.
Take action
We take action, make a plan, move forward or even take a position about a topic based on all of the steps of the ladder.
The actions you choose will be based on your steps up the ladder, while other people will choose actions based on their own steps. It would be normal that your actions and theirs would be quite different and even incompatible.
Make assumptions
As we know, the brain makes assumptions, draws conclusions and fills in blanks.
These assumptions can be based on our history, traditions, memories, our own rules of conduct, what we've done in other companies, what we like, what we think should happen, our own personal values and so many other influences.
Make meaning
We assign meaning to the data we have selected so that it fits in our world-view and makes sense to us. It helps us make sense of information, events and even people. But it doesn't mean we are correct.
For example:
- When my boss calls, that means that she is suspicious about what I'm working on.
- When Sandra replied to my email with an answer to my question but didn't ask me how I am, that means that she doesn't care.
- After two of my direct reports each call me to discuss the same topic, I think this means they have been gossiping.
In psychology, meaning-making is the process of how people construe, understand, or make sense of life events, relationships, and the self.
Select data
Our attention is limited and selective. We do not have the capacity to absorb all information available. And our brain focuses our attention on what we are interested in, what we relate to, what we understand and what we expect to see. We select specific data from the pool available.
It is possible for two people to observe the same situation and take away completely different memories of the event.
Pool of all available data
All information available includes facts, figures and historical data. It could also include project plans, comments and input from various people and anything else that might lead one to make a choice or decision.
The pool of all available data
Marvi is an Executive Assistant to both Markus (CEO) and Shayla (VP). She has a lot on her plate!
There is evidence of tasks that Marvi has completed and tasks she has not completed. These tasks are documented in plans, emails and her job description, as well as agreements made in various conversations between the three colleagues.
Shayla's data, meaning and assumptions
Shayla notices that Marvi has not been following through on tasks. She pays close attention to Marvi's lack of performance and has listened carefully to critical feedback from others.
Shayla makes up that Marvi does not have the qualities needed for this position. She assumes that Marvi will not be able to master the role and concludes that it is time to let her go.
Markus's data, meaning and assumptions
Markus has noticed how Marvi follows through on his requests, even if she has not always done everything she agreed to.
He has not paid attention to feedback from Shayla nor the others.
He makes up that she is learning quickly on the job, he assumes she has the capability but just needs some direction and concludes that it's time to invest in her training so she will become an excellent EA.
Markus and Shayla take action
Markus asks Shayla to take Marvi under her wing to train her and help her come up to speed.
Shayla explodes at the suggestion and Markus is completely shocked.