Anda di halaman 1dari 5
‘ages itom Py ond Rober Pam chi Rid Rass 7° live in a world of solf-generating beliefs which remain largely tuntested. We adopt those beliols because they are bused on con- clusions, which are inferred fiom what we observe, plas our past expe: Our ability to achieve the results we truly d sire is eroded by our lings that: © Our helief ar the truth, 3 The truth is obviows, ™ Our beliefs are based on real data. = The data we select are the real data. For example: Iam standing before the executive team, making a pre+ tation. They all seem engaged und alert, except for Larry, a the end of the table, who seoms bored out of his mind. He tums his dark, morose SEAGE, PETER M. ET AL, THE FIFTH Diserfinie lensed N@Qe Gore + DouBceday , (AG. eves away from me and pits his hand to his mouth. He doesn’t ask any questions until Pip almost done, when he breaks in: “I think we should ask for a full report.” In this culture, that typically means, “Let's move on.” Everyone starts to shullle their papers and put their notes way: which is ashame, beat t needs, Now that | think of it, he's never liked eny ideas. Clearly, Larry is @ pow the time Iver Include anything in my report that Larry os worse still, he'd just use it against mo. Tks too bad Thave an enemy mar tees, Lany obviously thinks that Tm incovupetent. oe these ideas are exactly what his departine Siar er, Boker Fatsan, ond Be Been nih hungry jerk. By tumed to my seat, I've made a decision: I'm not goin to fest: res use, He wouldn't read i¢, 3-5 Se Filbook p26 ‘who's so prottinent in the company. ‘oud before take my seat, { have climbed up what rental pathy of increasing abstraction, offen leading to unisquided belief" In those few s Chris Angi culls @ “ladder of inference,” a comm: jem [Beliets | \ Kconchusions| _ | i} \ Thevetiexive ‘ =I poop ta | Assouptions| j ‘ | i AMean ings | | 1 lant eetenad) |! / Yo W Observable “dete” and cxpertenices feeq STP am shige btn 22 vg nop, Te Lato of ca ce by Ba at for Oaszionl Loo. 8 | started with the observable data: Larry's comment, which is so self evident that it would show up on a videots pe recorde a... Tselected some details about Larry's behavior: his glance awny from me und apparent yen. (I didn't notice him listening intently ‘one moment before) 1. Tadded some m nings of my own, based on the culture around ‘me (that Lary wanted me to finish up) 2. T moved rapidly up to essumptioas about Larry's current state the’s bored) a. and [concluded that Larry, in general, thinks Tn incompetent In fact, T now believe that Larry (and probably everyone whom [ associate with Larry) is dangerously opposed to me laddor, I'm plotting against him thus, as I reach the top of the It all seems s0 reasonable, and it happens so quickly, that I'm not even aware I've done it. Moreover, all the nies of the ladder take place in my head. The only parts visible to anyone else are the directly obse able data at the botiom, and my own decision to take action at the top. ‘The rest of the trip, the ladder where J spend most of my time, is un tioned, not considered fit for discussion, and enormously seen, ungues abstract. (These leaps up the ladder are sometimes called “Ieaps of al straction.”) Tve prob The more 1 believe that Larry is an evil guy, the more ¥ reinforce my xably leaped up that ladder of inference many times before. tendency to notice his malevolent bebavior in the future. This phenom- ‘enon is known as the “teflexive loop”: our beliefs infuence what data we select next ime. And there is @ counterpart reflexive Toop in Larny’s mind: as he reacts to my strangely antagonistic behevier, he’s probably jumping up some rungs on his own ladder. For no apparent reason, be- fore too long, we could find ourselves becoming bitter enemies." Lary might indeed have been bored by my presentation—or he right have boon eager to real the report on paper. He might think Pm incompetent, he might be shy, or he might be afraid to embarrass mi More likely than not, be has inferred that I think he's incompetent. We can't know, until we find & way to ebeck our conclusions. Unfortunately, sssuinptions and conclusions are particularly difficult to test, Forinsiaace, suppose [ wanted to find out if Larry really thought [vas incoropetent, I would have to pall him aside and ask him, “Larry, eo you think ['m an idiot?” Even if T eould find a way to phrase the question, howe believe the answer? Would [ answer him honestly? No, Fd thiaking worse of hin for asking me. fim T thought he wes a terrific collengue, while privately Now imagine me, Lary, and three others in a senior management and hetiofs, When we meet to deal foam, with or untested asts with a conerote problem, the sir is filled with misundersiandings, com= rvinication breakdowns, and feeble compromises. Thus, while our inei- vidual 1Qs average 140, our team has a collective 1Q of 8. The ladder of inference exphuins why most people don't usually re member where their deepest attitudes cane from, The data is long since Jost 10 memory, after years of inferential leaps. Sometimes T find myself aeguing that “The Fi wwliyT belicve that. My inn mblicans are sovand-so,” and someone asks me wer i, "don't know. But odiate, intuit Tve believed it for years.” In the meantime, other people “The Demoerats aré so-and-so,” and they cmt tell yon wy stead. they may dredge up an old platitede which once was an assump- tion, Before long, we eome to think of our longstanding assumptions as, data Well, 1 know the Republi al steps removed from the data e saying, either, Ine us are such-annd-such because theyre OUR LIFE, TrHOUT ADDI clusions. It would be an inefficient, tediou EASING OR DRAWING CON way to live, But you can improve your commnications through reflection, and by using the fade der of inference in three ways: eB wore aware of your own thinks © Inquiring into others’ thinking and reasoning (inguity) Ouce Larry ind T understand the concepts behind the “ladder of inference,” we have a safe way to stop @ couversation in its tracks ar ash several questions = Wut is the observable dita behind that statement? # Does everyone agree on what the data is? = Hew did we get from that data to these a sumptions? © When you said “[your inference interpretatio of itl Some ladders of erence I can ask for data in an open-ended way: “Larry, what was your re- action to this presentation?” I can test my assumptions: “Larry, are you bored?” Or I can simply test the observable data: "You've been quiet, Larry.” To which he might reply: "Yeah, I'm taking notes; I love this stuff.” Note that I don’t say, “Larry, I think you've moved way up the ladder of inference. Here's what yon need to do to get down.” The point of this method is not to nail Larry (or even to diagnose Larry), but to make our thinking processes visible, to see what the differences are in our percep- tious aad what we have in common. (You might say, “I notice I'm moving ladder of inference, and maybe we all are. What's the data This type of conversation is not easy: For example, as Chris Argyis cautions people, whon a fact seems especially self-evident, be careful. if ‘your manner suggests that it must be equally self-evident to everyone else, you may cut off the chance to test it, A fact, no matter how obvious it seems, isn't really substantiated until i's verified independentlv—by more than one person's observation, or by a technological record (a tape recording or photograph. Embedded into team practice, the ladder becomes @ very healthy tool. There's something exhilarating about showing other people the links of your reasoning, They may or may not agree with you, but they can see how you got there. And you're often suxprised yourself to so how you got there, once you trace out the links.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai