My mediation practice is focused on divorce. I help people end their relationships without going to court. In this process many people aren’t represented by their own attorney.
Therefore, I write about alimony, parenting plans, child support and the other divorce related topics. My goal is to increase potential potential client’s understanding of the laws that frame the California divorce process.
However, I also write about we make decisions and solve problems. Answering questions in mediation is very different than in litigation. In mediation the answer is yours. You don’t need to shape your problems into a question that will to allow a judge to answer.
Some find this terrifying and others find it liberating.
In either case you will be happier if your decisions are well informed and made in a reasonable manner.
If you agree that today’s decisions create the future. Then you will agree that your perceptions will have a major impact on your future.
Or at least that is the premise of The Inference Ladder.
The Inference Ladder
Chris Argyris was a behavioral scientist who created tools to help organizations become less authoritarian and more responsive to their employees and customers.
The Inference Ladder was one of those tools.
He observed that management had a tendency to make mediocre decisions based on their interpretation of facts rather than on their understanding of facts.
So what is the difference between understanding versus interpreting facts?
Good question. Here’s a slightly long answer.
The survival as a species has been partially based on our ability to quickly interpret and react to our environment. If we were mostly right most of the time, well that was good enough. We lived to see another day.
For example, when the bushes rustled it was better to interpret the rustle as dangerous and move. Those who coolly investigated the shrub, considered the evidence and then made their decision may have been on track to make a better decision but it carried a higher probability of a large tiger bite.
Times have changed.
The challenge of not being eaten been replaced by the necessity of making sense of a stream of complex and nuanced information. In light of this change, we need to rethink how we make decisions in the face of uncertainty.
Not an easy task, we’re wired to make a fast intuitive judgement. Our brain latches onto its first “most likely” interpretation and then builds a justification to support it. This allows us to act decisive and with confidence but it hides how tenuous this initial conclusion can be.
The Inference Ladder is used to separate a decision into steps so we can see where we may have jumped to a premature conclusion.
The steps on the decision ladder are.
Observe the facts.
Choose which facts are important.
Make assumptions about the facts.
Draw a conclusion based on these assumption.
Adopt a belief.
Take action.
It seems unwieldy, something that only a college professor could love. And you may rightfully wonder if there is much data supporting it.
The fast answer, “It doesn’t completely matter,” because this method loosely tracks research on cognitive biases by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in Daniel Kahneman receiving a Nobel Prize .
So when the guy across from you says, “I’ve got a gut feeling on this one,” you can pass him a donut and know you have a tool to gauge the accuracy of his instinct.
For example.
In A Property Settlement Conference.
A husband and wife exchange proposals to divide marital property.
Observe the facts- The wife reviews her soon to be ex husband’s proposal.
Choose the facts - She sees his demand for the SUV and the rest of his proposal fades into the background.
Assumption based on the facts - She knows he loves fishing so she assumes that he intends to use the SUV for long and lazy fishing trips.
Draw a Conclusion - If he is out fishing then he has no intention of getting a job.
Belief - Since he has no intention of getting a job he intends to request an outrageous amount of spousal support.
Action - She rejects the proposed property division.
Ok, maybe she’s right.
After all she knows her husband. And she knows that he loves fishing. In fact his spur of the moment fishing trips in the SUV are one of the reasons that they are getting divorced. And time spent fishing is time not working so he’ll probably want more spousal support.
Sometimes our gut instincts are mostly right. But mostly right isn’t good enough. That won’t lead to best outcomes.
If her “gut instinct” is actually a manifestation of her wounded ego or the desire to inflict some punishment then her reaction could cause her to mistakenly pass on an offer that is beneficial to her.
Or, and this is more likely, she’s not paying enough attention to the entire proposal and will miss clues that could lead to a better outcome.
Slow the Rush to Judgement.
It is not enough to move down the ladder and reconsider the facts.
If you are operating under the influence of a “gut reaction” everything that doesn’t support that impression tends to remain unseen or its value is discounted.
If she is firmly entrenched in her belief that her soon to be ex asked for the SUV because he intends to go fishing and live off alimony then a review of the supporting facts will only reveal facts that support this potentially erroneous belief.
Instead, before reviewing the facts…
Create a list of alternate assumptions.
Strive to create three or four assumptions. They can be completely off the mark. But when you review the facts make a point to find those which support each of your assumptions. You can use the same fact to support different assumptions.
And feel free to bend facts to fit assumptions.
The goal is to expand your view of alternate possibilities and then develop questions to lead you in the right direction.
Another tool…
Write the “Why” behind your Assumptions.
Why do you believe they are the only possible interpretation.
Create a list of why your assumptions are the only possible explanation. And as you explain this to a neutral person, ask them to think of at least two reasons why each of your assumptions could have an alternative answer.
In this case, why else would the soon to be ex want the SUV?
He needs the SUV to restart his construction business.
The SUV is for his long commute so he doesn’t put excess miles on a leased car.
He intends to use the SUV as a bribe to repair his relationship with the kids.
It will be useful when he moves to the country and its drastically lower cost of living.
And what if the entire initial premise was wrong. He doesn’t love fishing, he hates it. But fishing was the only way he could get out of the house.
Would this change her view of his settlement proposal? Maybe. It would certainly raise a line of questions.
Conclusion
We are hard wired to jump to intuitive conclusions because it has mostly worked in the past but now we that know these judgements can be misleading.
We live in a complex interrelated world and our decision making process should reflect that.
We need to delve deeper and find the solution that had been slightly out of focus.
You can do this, people do it all the time.
Ted Andrews is a mediator living in Southern California. He practices throughout California.
Disclaimer - The information provided in this post is for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You should not act or rely upon this information without seeking formal professional counsel. The information provided in this post is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.