Argyris' Ladder of Inference: Climb to Better Decisions and Relationships

Speaker: 00:00:04

Hello, listeners. Welcome back to Social Skills Coaching, where you become more likable, more charismatic, and more productive. It's October 3, and today if someone asks you what day it is, you can tell them it's October 3. It's Mean Girls Day. If that was too obscure, you. And on the subject of holidays and celebrations, today is eat fruit at workday and that's all you get, so pack it up. Good. Today's episode introduces a new book by Patrick King, how to speak effectively, influence, engage, and charm. But before we can communicate effectively, we should understand what miscommunication is. To do that, we take a look at Chris arduous's Ladder of Inference.

Speaker: 00:00:58

s for being with us today. In: 1974

Speaker: 00:02:00

Alex is looking ahead to the next six months and trying to figure out what kind of summer vacation they can afford. They end up having an enormous argument, with Jamie thinking that Alex is not taking money concerns seriously, or taking responsibility for overspending, whereas Alex cannot see why Jamie is stuck on what is in the past and cannot be changed. They both find themselves saying “I’m just trying to get a handle on our financial situation!” and yet mysteriously they also both feel that the other one is getting in the way. What’s happened here? According to Argyris, communication has broken down, and it’s because Jamie and Alex are on different rungs of the ladder of inference. If you’ve ever experienced a communication breakdown of this kind, you’ll know that it can be very subtle and hard to pinpoint. Often, we are only actually aware of our assumptions, expectations, and frames of reference when they conflict with someone else’s! But this is where the ladder comes in. It looks as follows.

Speaker: 00:03:02

Imagine a ladder with each rung getting gradually smaller from bottom to top: ACTIONS BELIEFS CONCLUSIONS ASSUMPTIONS MEANINGS SELECTED DATA OBSERVATIONS Now imagine that this ladder is standing in a big puddle of water, which we’ll call the POOL OF OBSERVATIONS. This pool contains all the possible observations we can make about the world—theoretically, there are infinite possibilities. The next rung up is OBSERVATIONS. These are all the observations that you select from the candidates of potential. We’ll look at what causes you to select some observations and not others in just a moment. The next rung is about the pieces of information you further select from these selected observations, SELECTED DATA—i.e., it’s a subset. You’re further narrowing down the data you are focusing on. The next rung is MEANING, which is the significance you attach to these selected observations. The next rung, ASSUMPTIONS, is what you do with this meaning.

Speaker: 00:04:14

You extrapolate or make assumptions based on the meaning you’ve extracted from the observations. On the next rung you come to CONCLUSIONS to make sense about what this all amounts to, and finally, these conclusions inform your BELIEFS about the world and your place in it. Consequently, every ACTION you take, the last rung, is informed by this long chain of inferences and meaning making. Furthermore, the ladder doesn’t just go one way. Once you make meaning and take an action in accordance with those beliefs, then those beliefs actually tend to affect the data you are likely to select next time round on the SELECTED DATA rung. Can you see where this is going? There are two potential problems: 1. Though everyone may begin in the same puddle of potential observations, each person ends up constructing their own unique ladder from those observations all the way up to the actions they take. If those ladders lead to completely different assumptions, meanings, beliefs, and ultimately actions, then conflict can arise. 2. Conflict can also occur, as we saw with Jamie and Alex, when two people are on different rungs and trying to talk with one another from different positions.

Speaker: 00:05:30

In our example, Jamie is on the SELECTED DATA and MEANING rungs, trying to understand what went wrong and piece it all together (and, honestly, assign blame ... ). Alex, however, is on the BELIEFS or ACTIONS rung, and is already looking for ways to move on from the fact that they overspent. It may be, however, that even if Jamie and Alex were on the same rung, they may disagree on what meanings to ascribe to observations, and what beliefs and actions to take as a result. However, good communication doesn’t necessarily mean agreement—it means understanding. Jamie and Alex can have a fruitful, productive conversation even though they ultimately disagree. At the same time, they can have an argument even when they both want the same thing and essentially agree! How to Use the Ladder in Your Own Life The ladder is an excellent way to identify, defuse, and resolve conflict. It’s a way to shed light on misunderstandings and get everyone moving forward again. If you find yourself in a situation where you or others are “talking past one another,” then this is your signal that communication is going to break down—or already has.

Speaker: 00:06:46

The first thing to do is check which rung each speaker is on. If the person you’re talking to has an objection that comes from a rung lower than yours, it needs to be addressed first before moving on. Your discussion should focus on bringing you both up the ladder together. For example, if Alex identifies that Jamie is on a lower rung, then the objections made start to make more sense. Alex can now address them. Jamie: “You’re not listening. We spent five hundred dollars more last month on eating out than we said we would. That’s a big deal!" Alex: “Okay, it seems like you’re really worried about how much we overspent.

Speaker: 00:07:30

I agree with you, it’s a lot. Why do you think it happened?" (Here, Alex is asking Jamie to move to the next rung, MEANING.) Jamie: “Well, we were careless, that’s all. We weren’t paying attention." Alex: “I agree. It crept up on us. Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me, though, that there’s nothing we can do about it now. And if we want to do better next time round, we need to start looking at the future."

Speaker: 00:07:59

(Now, to the next rung—can you see the two ASSUMPTIONS made?) Jamie: “Yes, okay. Let’s do that." Alex: “Unless we make some changes, we’re going to be in big trouble (CONCLUSIONS). Now I know money’s tight, but I still believe that going on vacations is very important, and I don’t want to suddenly stop doing everything we enjoy (BELIEFS). So I think moving forward, I want to figure out some smart ways we can still do the things we love without spending too much money (ACTIONS)." Jamie: “Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I want to do that too." Now, there is no more disagreement in which Jamie keeps reiterating how bad they were to overspend, while Alex feels guilty for planning vacations.

Speaker: 00:08:52

They’re communicating again. Granted, in this example, we’ve kept things very simple and straightforward; in real life, each of these “rungs” may take a long time, perhaps even days. And though in our example Alex very neatly “leads” Jamie, in reality this process would be a lot more subtle, complex, and collaborative. There may well be disagreement or compromise. But ultimately communication is improved because people are reasoning together, rather than at cross-purposes. The ladder can also be useful any time you are trying to get someone to understand your own actions, or proposed actions. Whenever you want to “bring someone around” to your point of view, don’t start with the top of the ladder—bring them along with you and take each step of the ladder at a time so they can see how the inferences and assumptions of your argument gradually build on one another. It’s true that someone understanding your thought process doesn’t necessarily have to agree with you afterward. The good thing is that if you use the ladder technique, you will almost always avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication, and you will give yourself the best chance of actually being heard.

Speaker: 00:10:10

Another great thing about the ladder is that it shows you that the process of thinking contains many separate, sequential components—and skipping one can sometimes lead to sloppy thinking and, of course, miscommunication. It can be useful sometimes to use the ladder to slow down and examine your own thought processes. Try working backward almost “forensically”: 1. What beliefs have inspired your actions? 2. What conclusions do you have about a situation, yourself, others, or the world that informed those beliefs? 3. What assumptions are you making? (A great question is to ask whether you really have much evidence for them, and investigate what changes if you make different assumptions or none at all). 4. What meaning are you ascribing to your experiences? 5. What are you focusing on? What data are you selecting from your environment to act on—or else, what information have you discounted, ignored, or forgotten about?

Speaker: 00:11:22

6. Finally, can you look once more with fresh eyes at the observations around you? For a moment, can you do this without any interpretation? Asking these questions can reveal interesting ways that our own thinking has gone astray, and if we can get a better understanding of that, we instantly become better communicators. After all, how can we expect clear and conscious communication with others when we ourselves are unclear on our motivations, expectations, and the meaning we ascribe to any situation? The ladder can be used formally or informally, and for big complex chunks of data as well as more simple information. It is highly adjustable, but its strength is that it forces you to look at things you might have taken for granted. For example, you might use the framework in a meeting you are leading. If you understand the meeting as an exercise in getting everyone to “think together,” then you can structure the meeting so that it moves deliberately from one rung to the other. This gives you time to iron out objections or confusions rather than rushing ahead to the higher rungs and risking a full-on conflict.

Speaker: 00:12:35

A few further key insights as you use the ladder in your own communication: Nobody is “wrong." The ladder is not there to help you find out who is to blame! Also, the person who is higher on the ladder isn’t necessarily faster, more intelligent, more correct, or more motivated. As we’ve seen, misunderstandings usually arise because of mismatch—that doesn’t mean that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy. It just means something is not aligning. Switch focus from content to process. Too many arguments are sustained because people are distracted by the content of what is being said—but usually the problem is the way it’s being said, and the reasoning behind that. As you talk to someone, become tuned in to the way they are thinking—and the way you are thinking! Keep your ego out of it.

Speaker: 00:13:31

Disagreement and conflict have a way of activating our defenses and making us wrongly believe that we are the model of good reasoning, and everyone else is mistaken, stupid, crazy, wrong, bad, etc. But slow down and consider your reasoning, their reasoning, and the way the two are interacting. Remember that you are not just applying the ladder analysis to them, but to yourself as well. You might feel like you want to stand on the top of your own ladder and yell your opinion to all who will hear it, but this is just ego talking and will get you nowhere. Ask questions. Finally, one way to become a better communicator is to actively engage them in the process of examining the underlying reasoning behind action and opinion. Ask with genuine curiosity. Why do they think XYZ? What facts do they know, and what do those facts mean to them?

Speaker: 00:14:34

Why? How? To conclude, most of us experience the objective world subjectively and selectively. We focus on specific facts only, interpret what those facts mean based on certain assumptions, come to conclusions based on these assumptions, allow these conclusions to shape our beliefs, and then let these beliefs guide our action ... as well as determine what facts we focus on in the future. This process can be an opportunity to create a strong, effective, and healthy way of looking at the world, or it can become an unconscious echo chamber that ends up amplifying and replicating the same errors again and again. Framing If you’re like most people, you listen to respond. You’re reactive. You let conversations go whichever way they go. But good communicators approach things a little differently.

Speaker: 00:15:32

h made by Barack Obama at the: 2004

Speaker: 00:16:36

Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?" Notice how he has structured his speech—notice the frame by which he is delivering his message. He did not simply stand up on the stage and announce: “It’s important for us to remember who we are as Americans” or even “it’s time there was an African American president, and I’ll give you some reasons why." Rather, he took seventeen long minutes to lead the audience to this conclusion themselves. Note in the above that he asks a rhetorical question, to which the only answer can be “we participate in a politics of hope." Notice the rhythm and repetition in the way he lays out the artificial differences between different types of Americans, then leads to his conclusion: “we are one people." Obama (and indeed anyone delivering a persuasive speech of this kind) succeeds not because he effectively shows people what he thinks, but because he constructs a compelling frame in which to communicate that message. His listeners, then, go a step further from understanding and are stirred up enough to be inspired by him and agree with what he says. When the frame of a conversation changes, everything changes.

Speaker: 00:17:57

Everything takes on a different meaning. Therefore, it’s simply not something we can leave to chance. Obama, of course, would have had this speech carefully written by experts, and he may well have rehearsed it for hours. Obama was known as a powerful and persuasive speaker, and it’s in big part due to his understanding of how to frame himself and his message. George Lakoff is an author and professor of cognitive science and linguistics. In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant!, he explains how talking to people’s frames is a powerful way of having them really hear you, saying that we mistakenly think that, “if we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions. But we know from cognitive science that people do not think like that. People think in frames ... to be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off.

Speaker: 00:19:04

Why? Neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have—the long-term concepts that structure how we think—is instituted in the synapses of our brains. Concepts are not things that can be changed just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise, facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: “Why would anyone have said that?" Then we label the fact as irrational, crazy, or stupid." So, a frame is the way we work with pre-existing concepts to ensure that the message we’re sharing has the highest chance of being received. Interestingly, it’s also why Lakoff recommends resisting the frame of someone you’re pushing against by refusing to use their language.

Speaker: 00:20:03

This is because it is language that builds the frame—and if someone is not working in your interests, then the frame they choose will not be the frame you want. In Obama’s case, framing is used to persuade. But frames can have other uses and are especially helpful in navigating difficult, uncomfortable, or emotionally charged conflicts. Maybe the other person just refuses to listen or believe you. Maybe you both keep saying the same things over and over, and it’s escalating. What’s the solution? According to Lakoff, you both need to find a way to get into the same frame. As a good communicator, it’s your job to find out what story you could tell that will resonate with the other person. Remember—it’s not about facts.

Speaker: 00:20:50

It’s about all the many different ways to look at those facts, and what that means for two people who find themselves in a conversation about them. Here are a few things to keep in mind: 1. Make sure that, as far as possible, you begin every conversation with a good idea of where you want it to go. Be proactive. 2. What is your frame? Your source of truth? The framework you’re embedded in? Really own this—it will help you find the metaphors and stories that will help you express your position. 3. Get the other person to see into this frame of yours by asking them questions. You want them to agree.

Speaker: 00:21:35

Be careful and avoid using their story or their words. 4. Deliberately engineer the structure of your story so that it leads toward the kind of solutions you want. It’s about focus. Reading the above, you may think that setting a conversational frame may be a little manipulative. Isn’t thinking in this way precisely the thing that leads to stubborn standoffs in conversations? Well, yes and no. The truth is, we are all using frames all the time. It’s just a question of whether we’re consciously aware of it, how those frames work, to what end, and in service of whom and what. Being a good communicator means understanding all this and proactively taking charge.

Speaker: 00:22:24

This is more often than not a win-win scenario. Let’s look at an example. Imagine a potential client is interested but has concerns about the price you’re charging. What you don’t want to do in this case is bombard them with facts (you might call them “reasons”) to change their mind. It won’t work. What you need to do is consider the best frame for the case you want to make. And to do that, you need to understand the frame they’re already in, the nature of their objections and fears, and what exactly it is you’re asking them to do. This might allow you to realize that the person is hesitant because they are unsure of the real value of what you’re offering. They are very, very tired of being aggressively marketed to and just want something that works.

Speaker: 00:23:14

So you say that they’re right—it is expensive. There are people who don’t buy because it’s not in their budget, and that’s okay. But you do have many satisfied clients who, having taken the leap, are now really glad they did—and you’d be happy to put them in touch. Otherwise, you totally respect their decision either way, and they know where to find you if they change their mind. Can you feel the frame? Can you see how this response actually pulls the potential client into that frame with you? There is nothing in it for the person to push against—and a lot to agree with. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it.”In this example, you are using a frame that gives you the best chance of actually reaching this prospective client and getting them to behave in the way you want them to behave.

Speaker: 00:24:14

In the same way, a frame can change anything. It can turn a restriction and a limit into “safety” and “comfort." It can position a loss as a gain or a gain as a loss. It can appoint an adversary as a teacher, and a friend as a saboteur. The luxury fashion brand Hermes sells a handbag, the “Birkin." But not just anyone can buy the handbag; there are only a limited number available, and you have to be invited to spend the roughly fifty thousand dollars to have one. The company will only sell to those they consider worthy, and in fact don’t even fully advertise their selection criteria, and do not display the bag in ordinary stores. Their tactics around this item are kept under a deliberate veil of mystery. Hermes has completely inverted the conventional buyer-seller frame and created their own: In this frame, instead of the company marketing themselves so they are selected by the consumer, the consumer fights to be considered a potential buyer and feels privileged to cough up the fifty thousand dollars.

Speaker: 00:25:28

Every person you ever communicate with will have a lifetime of experiences behind them, and these have taught them in gradual increments to adopt certain beliefs and worldviews (hopefully not too many as bizarre as Hermes’). Many of these views will be unconscious. But that doesn’t stop them from being strongly influenced by these beliefs, which seep through and infiltrate everything they do and say, as well as everything they’re able to hear or agree with. Think again about Obama’s speech. There would have been many different people in the crowd that night, and a lot of them will have possessed viewpoints and frames that didn’t match the one Obama was presenting. For example, many Democrats who are politically involved enough to attend conventions and rallies do tend to think that there is such a thing as a “liberal America and a conservative America, a Black America and white America”—after all, they were there to show support for the democrats, not the conservatives, and specifically for Obama himself precisely because he was a Black American, not because his race didn’t matter. This is the power of framing—it can so thoroughly change context, shift meanings, and create new understandings that it allows you to not only have a conversation but steer a conversation. This steering is so powerful that it can actually remake meaning entirely and cause people to completely change not just their opinions but the way they arrive at those opinions. Obama could have framed himself as a victim or as an angry avenger.

Speaker: 00:27:10

He could have highlighted the frame of justice, or the frame of prosperity. He could, in essence, have chosen any frame in the world. When someone uses their power to frame and influence in a good way, we call them leaders and are happy to be inspired by them. When their frames dominate and diminish us, we call them bullies and tyrants. Importantly—it’s the same skill! Reality is fixed ... but the meaning of reality is dynamic and subject to change. It is not absolute but contextual, not passively received but actively constructed. This is where communication takes place, and where you have your greatest chance for making connections, being heard, and influencing others. Brought to you from Patrick King's book Speak Effectively, now, available on Audible as an audiobook, Amazon and itunes as well, and Amazon in other formats.

Speaker: 00:28:23

You can learn more about the author at his website, bit ly slash PK Consulting and this has been Social Skills Coaching. If you like what you just heard, we hope you'll pass along our web address newtonmg.com to your friends and colleagues. This has been a Newton Media Group production. Join us next week for another episode of Social Skills Coaching on Tuesday. And finally, if your birthday is today, you're in very musical company. Lindsay Buckingham, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Chubby Checker, as well as Gwen Stefani were all born on this day. We leave you with a quote from Gwen Stefani after you make a fool of yourself a few hundred times, you learn what works. Close.