LSW#22 🪜How We Jump to Conclusions
Why "they just don't get it", and what to do about it
“Data” is not as objective as we think
Consider this following sequence from Woody Allen’s classic movie Annie Hall:
“We never have sex,” Alvie Singer complains.
“We’re constantly having sex,” says his girlfriend.
“How often do you have sex?” asks their therapist.
“Three times a week!” they reply in unison.
- from Difficult Conversations
Here’s the longer video version:
We tend to think of data as always objective and self-explanatory. The above example clearly shows it almost never is, by itself. We carry the same fallacy to our interactions.
If you find value in my writing, consider sharing it with someone who might benefit.
Same “data” but very different conclusions
The depiction is funny, but these types of divergent interpretations are all too common in our work and lives. Unfortunately, when we are at the receiving end of it, it’s not amusing at all.
Some examples:
Your new initiative is a potential game-changer, but key stakeholders simply don’t see it that way.
You were simply being “assertive and direct”, but instead you came across as plain “rude and insensitive”. Now your manager wants you to do sensitivity training.
Your team went out of its way to meet a ridiculous deadline. But the customer thinks you simply “did your job”. The same can happen in your performance appraisal conversations.
You think you are doing your part in helping out with house-chores. But your partner doesn’t seem to agree.
In all the above scenarios, objective “data” is the same, but subjective reality — the stories that we or others create and the conclusions that follow — is widely different.
These situations are common, at the same time, difficult. And most of us are not trained to navigate them skillfully.
Our default method is to argue our way to convince someone of our point of view. But when is the last time that worked? This leads us to conclude: “They just don’t get it. It’s beyond me.” We either feel like victims at the receiving end of unfair assessments, or simply lash out in different ways.
To skillfully navigate these critical interactions, we have to better understand what’s happening behind the scenes, ie inside our heads and that of our stakeholders
All of us are living in “separate realities” even if the objective outside world is the same. How so? Our realities stem from the stories we create, and there’s a distinct process through which this happens.
Our stories don’t come out of nowhere. They aren’t random. Our stories are built in often unconscious but systematic ways. First, we take in information. We experience the world— sights, sounds, and feelings. Second, we interpret what we see, hear, and feel; we give it all meaning. Then we draw conclusions about what’s happening. And at each step, there is an opportunity for different people’s stories to diverge.
Put simply, we all have different stories about the world because we each take in different information and then interpret this information in our own unique ways.
In difficult conversations, too often we trade only conclusions back and forth, without stepping down to where most of the real action is: the information and interpretations that lead each of us to see the world as we do.
—Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen in Difficult Conversations
The sequence that the authors are describing is captured well by a tool called the ladder of inference. It outlines the journey that all of us humans take from objective observable reality to the subjective domain of opinions and decisions. This journey can be visualized as steps on a ladder.
The higher we are on the ladder, the more subjective our interpretation, and the harder it is to see another’s point of view. But mostly we don’t even realize that this is the case.
In fact, the more familiar with a given domain, the faster we “travel” up the ladder. This also makes it harder to see a different perspective.
Unlike ladders in the real world, being high up on the ladder of inference also means a very narrow and rigid perspective. To find common ground, you have to try and meet people at the bottom rungs of the ladder.
I did a deep dive into the ladder of inference. Click the image below if you want to read the main article.
The trick is to cultivate curiosity in their viewpoint, instead of being dismissive. This means acknowledging that their opinion is as objective as ours. Of course, this is hard to admit, and easier said than done.
To get anywhere in a disagreement, we need to understand the other person’s story well enough to see how their conclusions make sense within it. And we need to help them understand the story in which our conclusions make sense.
Understanding each other’s stories from the inside won’t necessarily “solve” the problem, but …it’s an essential first step.
—Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen in Difficult Conversations
Some questions to ask yourself for the examples cited earlier:
What’s causing your stakeholders to think there’s no value in your initiative? Perhaps what’s important to them is very different from what’s important to you.
Just because you utter some words, doesn’t mean it gets interpreted a certain way. Setting context is an often missed step, and crucially more critical. How can you create a relationship and background that will make sure that the right message gets through?
What’s your customer’s definition of “exceeded expectations”. Don’t assume your definition matches their’s.
What’s the story in your partner’s head about your contribution to chores? Can you articulate their viewpoint?
I highly recommend going through the in-depth article on the ladder of inference. Many of my clients have found it useful in understanding situations and coming up with a plan of action. Hope you find the same.
That’s it for this edition. Have a great week!
Couldnt agree more. Context is so important!!!