Even if you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve likely heard many political pundits theorize that our country is living in two alternate and competing realities. It’s not that we don’t want to see America prosper. We love our country, and in many ways, we are on the same page. Yet we struggle to communicate with civility because how one person views and relates to one or several core issues in their reality is likely drastically different from someone else — even when we see the same things, hear the same words, and are presented with the same facts.
These realities are distinct and don’t overlap, so forget about jumping from one reality to the next. As a result, we can’t figure out where each other is coming from and how to find common ground — or at least agree to disagree.
And it doesn’t even have to be about politics.
This “reality divide” permeates every conversation we have — sports, religion, family, careers, why I like sushi and you don’t, etc.
In recent weeks, we’ve written a lot about communicating with civility, all in the hope that we can one day get back to the days of talking things out, hearing what each other has to say, sharing information constructively, and understanding where we’re each coming from without becoming bitterly angry, unnecessarily defensive, hostile, cruel, and even polarizing to everyone around us. We’ve covered how we got here and what we can learn from the civil pros of the past. Now, let’s discuss practical ways to put these lessons into action.
The Ladder of Inference
Before we proceed, it’s important to understand the ladder of inference. This popular concept was introduced many years ago by organizational psychologist Chris Argyris. Without getting too deep into the weeds, it sheds light on how our thoughts and beliefs (from our own realities) can shape our actions and influence the outcomes of our interactions with others. Essentially, the ladder of inference illustrates the mental process we go through when making sense of the world around us.
While we all climb the same rungs one after the next, we interpret each rung drastically differently than the person next to us based on our past experiences, education, family background, current and past relationships, and more.
For instance, let’s say we’re both walking down the hallway at work when we notice John getting counseled harshly by his boss, Jane. We’re both seeing the same thing, yet our past experiences shape our view of that situation. We both may view the encounter as a reprimand. However, I may conclude that John really messed up because I have seen John fail before. Meanwhile, you may conclude that Jane has trouble with male employees because you have seen her have similar interactions with male employees.
So, while we see and hear the same conversation between John and Jane our interpretations of reality are quite different. And if we decide to discuss what we saw, we may both look at the other and think (and perhaps say aloud), “That’s not what I saw. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.”
Put more simply, we have different ladders of inference that cause our minds to process data differently. Thus, we end up in places that seem far apart from the person next to us.
So, How Can We Help Each Other Understand Our Competing Realities?
I adapted a few protocols with permission from The Fifth Discipline by Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, Peter Serge, and Bryan Smith. These protocols are designed to foster dialogue through which we can gain a better understanding and appreciation for each other. They can promote more civil interactions and serve as great starting points as we all strive to be more civil communicators.
These protocols reflect the key skills required for dialogue, advocacy, and inquiry, all of which should reflect respect for others and ultimately promote civil discourse.
1. Protocols for Improved Advocacy — Make your thinking process visible
State your assumptions and describe the data that led to them. Explain the context of your point of view explicitly, including who will be affected by what you propose, how they’ll be affected, and why. You may also give examples of what you propose, even if they’re hypothetical or metaphorical, and as you speak, picture the other person’s perspectives on what you’re saying.
For instance, you may say…
“Here’s what I think and how I got there.” You could also say, “I came to this conclusion because…” and “To get a clear picture of what I’m talking about, imagine that you’re the customer who will be affected.”
Furthermore, encourage others to explore your model, assumptions, and data and reveal where you are least clear in your thinking by saying, “What do you think about what I just said?” Or “Do you see any flaws in my reasoning?” Refrain from defensiveness when your ideas are questioned. If you’re advocating something worthwhile, then it will only get stronger by being tested.
2. Protocols for Improved Inquiry — Ask others to make their thinking processes visible
Gently walk others down the ladder of inference and find out what data they are operating from. Don’t be aggressive, particularly with people unfamiliar with these skills. Ask in a way that doesn’t provoke defensiveness and draw out their reasoning. Find out as much as you can about why they are saying what they’re saying.
Explain your reasons for insuring and test what they say by asking for broader contexts or examples. Then, listen for the new understanding that may emerge. Don’t concentrate on preparing to destroy the other person’s argument or promote your agenda.
For instance, you might say, “What leads you to conclude that, or what data do you have for that?” Have them help you understand their thinking. Ask them, “What is the significance of that, or how does this relate to your other concerns?”
Furthermore, “How would your proposal affect…?” You could also ask, “Can you describe a typical example?”
3. Protocols for When You Disagree
When you still struggle to agree, inquire about what has led the person to that view. Make sure you genuinely understand that view as they explain it, and explore, listen, and openly offer your own opinions. For example, “Are you taking into account data that I have not considered?” Furthermore, “Have you considered…?”
It’s important to listen for the larger meaning that may come from honest, open sharing of alternative mental models. Raise your concerns and state what leads you to have them by saying, “I have a hard time seeing that because of this reasoning…”
4. Protocols for When You Reach an Impasse
Embrace the impasse and look for information that will help everyone move forward. Ask if you could design an experiment of inquiry together that might provide new information. From there, consider each person’s mental model as a piece to a larger puzzle and ask what data or logic might change their views. Don’t let conversations stop with an “agree to disagree.”
Example statements can include any of the following:
“What do we know for a fact?”
“What don’t we know?”
“What would have to happen before you would consider the alternative?”
“It feels like we’re getting into an impasse, and I’m afraid we might walk away without any better understanding. Have you got any ideas that will help us clarify our thinking?”
The Business World Demands More Civil Communication
I believe there is a real opportunity here to better ourselves and each other. Whether you are an organizational leader or an employee working your way up the corporate ladder, improving your communication skills in settings where you may disagree with the person on the other side of the table is important. It takes a lot of practice to communicate with civility, but you will get there with hard work, practice, and the right frame of mind.
Webinar: Bringing Civility Back to Our Conversations.
I invite you to join me on Thursday, August 8 at 12:00 PM Eastern for a free webinar where I’ll share insights and answer questions about ways to ensure civil communications for you and in your workplace. Register here.
About the Author
Ron Placone, Ph.D., is an Associate Teaching Professor Emeritus of Business Management Communication and the Former Faculty Lead and Interim Executive Director for the Accelerate Leadership Center at the Tepper School of Business. Ron teaches a range of communication courses and leadership programs for Tepper students. Ron’s research interests include civility in discourse and fostering individual and team creativity. Previously at Carnegie Mellon, Ron was the Assistant Vice President for Learning & Development. Before joining Carnegie Mellon in 1999, Ron was Vice President and Director of Organizational Development and Communications for Mellon Network Services. Ron has been a consultant, leadership, and communication coach for numerous executives and corporate and not-for-profit organizations. He has consulted in health care, financial services, education, technology, and energy sectors. Ron has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric-English from Carnegie Mellon University.
