Henry Ford once said, "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you are right." In other words, our beliefs have a lot to do with the way things turn out. The reason is that we act on our beliefs. Our beliefs also affect how we interact with other people. They determine whether our interactions will be civil or uncivil, friendly or hostile.
Chris Argyris, an expert in the field of organizational analysis, explained this phenomenon and even gave it a name: "The Ladder of Inference." At the base of the ladder lie observable facts. The first rung of the ladder is reached when we select some of the observable facts that we will consider. This decision is based on our past experiences, values and beliefs. We decide what to see and hear, and so the climb begins.
As the climb up the ladder of inference continues, we affix meaning and make assumptions on the second and third rungs, respectively. At the fourth rung we arrive at conclusions. By the time we reach the fifth rung, we develop beliefs. These beliefs are shaped by our previous beliefs from the very first rung.
A fictional example may help to illustrate the theory. (This truly is fictional; no actual people or events are portrayed.) Suppose that I go before a group of my peers at a national conference to talk about some new academic program that is being proposed at Clinton. I am enthusiastic in my presentation. When the time comes for questions and answers, there are several members of the audience who contribute to the conversation. So much for the observable facts at the base of the Ladder.
Continuing the fictional example, I become fixated on the comments made by a person from a four-year college who said, "My college introduced a similar program in 2001, and it flopped." Subconsciously, I have selected to focus on the fact that the comment came from a person associated with a four-year college, not a community college -- perhaps because I felt that the community college sector is underappreciated. Whatever the reason -- valid or invalid -- I have just climbed the first rung of the Ladder of Inference.
By the time I get to the second rung of the ladder, I affix meaning. I say to myself, "His comment must indicate that he secretly wants my program to fail, as his did." It doesn't take long for me to reach the fourth rung and assume that the people sitting next to this person, who also happen to be from four-year colleges, also want my proposal to fail. In this fictitious example, the conclusion that I reach is that all people associated with four-year colleges want my proposal to fail. It would then be easy for me to start to believe that people from four-year colleges are antagonistic toward community colleges.
Wow! What a leap from "My college introduced a similar program in 2001, and it flopped." to "Four-year colleges are antagonistic to community colleges." Imagine how I might then interact (or how I might refrain from interacting) with people from four-year colleges. Then imagine what observable facts my future actions would generate. It's scary how the cycle can repeat, isn't it?
Adapting Henry Ford's adage to this situation, one might say, "Whether I think they are, or I think they aren't adversarial, I am right." My beliefs would have affected the outcome. We all climb the Ladder of Inference from time to time, but none of us likes to admit it. However, by admitting it, we can begin to "climb back down" the Ladder and set the stage for more civil (and productive) interactions.
Suppose that in my fictitious example, I took the opportunity to be less defensive, and engage my colleague in conversation. Perhaps he would have pointed out that there was a particular reason that the program didn't work in 2001, but that lessons were learned that could help to ensure success in 2011. Imagine the different conclusions that I would have reached and the different beliefs that I would have adopted. The person who would have been my adversary (if I chose for him to be) would now be my ally. My beliefs about four-year colleges would have been markedly different. Therefore, my future interactions with people from those institutions would be much more productive.
Replace the actors in my example above with your own set of actors, and see how easy it is for us to unconsciously reinforce our own unfair beliefs about groups of people -- "the faculty," "the administration," "out-of-county students," "taxpayers," "politicians," etc. If all of us made an effort to "climb back down" the Ladder of Inference more often, imagine the possibilities...
That's what I think. Please let me know what you think by e-mailing me at presidentsblog@clinton.edu.
Posts
