From Emotional Triggers to Values-Based Leadership: A Practical Framework

Craig Dickerson

July 1, 2025

This is the third post in our series exploring how the ladder of inference can impact and improve leadership effectiveness. In our first post, we introduced this mental model, which explains how we unconsciously leap from raw data to firm conclusions. Our second post expanded the framework to reveal how conclusions harden into beliefs that drive our actions. In this post, we’ll explore the emotional aspect of the ladder, showing how our inferences and stories become the source of our emotions and reactions, and how developing emotional agility can free us from these automatic patterns.

By connecting the ladder of inference with emotional agility, leaders gain tools to navigate complex interpersonal dynamics and foster productive conflict—elements crucial to human-centered leadership and the resilience required for today’s complex business environment.

Identifying the source of emotions

Before we dive into dealing with emotions, it might be helpful to spend some time thinking about their origin. Pause and think for a moment—what would you say is the source of your emotions? Many people believe that emotions are reactions to external events and, therefore, we have little control over them. Have you ever thought or said, “You are making me mad”? Is the other person solely responsible for creating the frustration welling up inside you? While external factors play a part in our emotions, psychological research points to our internal narratives as playing a significant role in how we feel about a situation.

Imagine this scenario: Two managers review their team’s performance report indicating that half of their goals have been met. Five goals completed out of the 10 objectives, in total. While one manager sees it as a step toward achieving success and is excited by the progress made so far, the other manager views it as falling short on half of their targets and feels disheartened by what seems like a setback. The data is the same, but the emotion is different, because story and mindset are different. We all know the old adage “glass half empty, glass half full.” Intuitively, we know that it is our thinking that drives our emotions, and this is good news because it means that we need not be held hostage to our emotions. However, we often don’t act according to that knowledge.

Understanding that our emotions arise from the narratives we construct empowers us to examine those narratives and choose our reactions with intentionality, an essential skill for human-centered leadership.

Ladder of inference meets emotional agility

In our last post, we saw how our conclusions about people or situations can solidify into stories. Remember Alex and Javier’s meeting? Alex concluded that Javier was rude when he arrived late, and this story influenced how Alex felt and acted for the remainder of their interaction. The story “Javier is rude” made Alex feel disrespected and perhaps angry, which affected his behavior toward Javier.

Had Alex chosen a different story, perhaps “Javier might be dealing with a crisis,” he would likely have felt concern rather than anger, a more productive emotion. In their Harvard Business Review article on emotional agility, Susan David and Christina Congleton describe how leaders get “hooked by their negative thoughts and emotions” like “fish caught on a line.”²

According to them, when we are hooked, we lose the ability to respond thoughtfully. Instead, we react from a place of emotional intensity that often contradicts our values and how we want to show up in the world. Think again of Alex. How likely is it that he wants to be known as an angry person? Is it more likely that he values collaboration or empathy (or at least prefers to be seen that way by his superiors)?

Think about a recent time when you felt triggered at work. What story were you telling yourself about the situation? How did that story shape your emotional response? Did your actions align with your values, or did you find yourself behaving in ways you later regretted? Was your resulting behavior productive or counterproductive?

The challenge is that these emotional hooks feel incredibly real and justified in the moment. When we’re at the top of our ladder, our conclusion feels like an absolute truth, and the emotions that follow seem like the only reasonable response. But as we’ve learned, these conclusions are often based on incomplete data, assumptions, and biases.

Four ways emotional agility can help

In their article, David and Congleton outline four key practices that, when combined with our understanding of the ladder of inference, can help leaders unhook themselves from unproductive emotional patterns.

1. Recognize your patterns: The first step is noticing when you’ve been hooked. The authors note that “your thinking becomes rigid and repetitive” and “the story your mind is telling seems old, like a rerun of some past experience.” When you find yourself climbing the same ladder repeatedly—making the same assumptions about certain people or situations—that’s a signal you’re caught in a pattern.

2. Label your thoughts and emotions: Instead of saying “My coworker is disrespectful,” try “I’m having the thought that my coworker is disrespectful, and I’m feeling angry.” This simple act of labeling creates distance between you and your experience, allowing you to see your thoughts and emotions as “transient sources of data that may or may not prove helpful.”

3. Accept them: Acceptance doesn’t mean resignation or acting on every feeling. It means acknowledging what you’re experiencing without immediately trying to suppress it or act on it. Take 10 deep breaths and notice what’s happening. What story are you telling yourself? What assumptions did you make as you climbed your ladder?

4. Act on your values: Once you’ve created space between yourself and your emotional reaction, you can choose actions that align with your values rather than your triggered state. Ask yourself: Will this response serve me and my organization in the long term? Am I taking a step toward being the leader I most want to be?

In real life: resolving a generational conflict

Let’s look at another scenario to see how this might work in practice. Maya, a Millennial project manager, and Robert, a baby boomer senior analyst, are constantly at odds.

Maya sends Robert a Slack message asking for urgent input on a proposal. When Robert doesn’t respond for two hours, Maya’s ladder kicks in: Robert saw the message (data selection), he’s ignoring me because he doesn’t respect younger colleagues (assumption), he’s dismissive and stuck in his ways (conclusion), Robert is slowing down the team (belief). This story triggers frustration and resentment (emotions).

Meanwhile, Robert checks his messages at scheduled intervals to maintain focus. When he sees Maya’s message labeled “urgent” for what seems like a routine question, his ladder goes to work: Everything is urgent to Maya (data selection), younger workers have no sense of priorities (assumption), Maya is impatient and demanding (conclusion), millennials don’t understand professional boundaries (belief). This story triggers irritation and dismissiveness (emotions).

Both are hooked by their stories and emotions. But what if one of them practiced emotional agility?

Maya could notice her pattern; she often feels dismissed by older colleagues. She could label it: “I’m having the thought that Robert is ignoring me.” She could accept her frustration without acting on it. Then, she could choose to act from her values of teamwork and collaboration by asking Robert how he likes to communicate.

The power of “strong opinions, weakly held”

Leaders who understand the ladder of inference know their conclusions might be wrong. Stanford professor Paul Saffo calls this having “strong opinions, weakly held,” which is the capacity to reach conclusions quickly but discard them when encountering conflicting evidence.³ To go a step further, leaders should actively look for data that challenges their stories.

This posture naturally leads to curiosity about opposing positions. Instead of restating your position louder or in different ways, you ask questions like: “We seem to be coming to different conclusions while looking at the same data. Can you help me understand how you came to your conclusion?” This communicates both curiosity and inclusion.

Additionally, no one wants to have a debate with someone unwilling to be swayed by new information. Think about disagreements you’ve had with others. Are you more willing to engage with someone steadfast and unshakable in their position, or someone curious about your perspective? How does it feel to discuss something with someone who listens to understand versus someone who listens only to respond?

The trick is to genuinely listen—not to trap them or prove them wrong, but to understand. Find things you agree on. Ask questions until you can paraphrase the other person’s ladder back to them accurately. Then—and this is key—be willing to change your own mind based on what you learn.

Supporting leadership fitness through emotional agility

This integration of the ladder of inference with emotional agility directly supports what we call Leadership Fitness . Specifically, it enhances flexibility (the capacity to leverage new strategies and behaviors in response to changing circumstances) and balance (the ability to manage tensions between opposing forces and ideas).

When leaders can unhook from their automatic emotional responses, they create space for the metacognition necessary to challenge their subconscious encoding processes. They can intentionally choose leadership behaviors that serve their goals and values rather than merely reacting from triggered states.

The bottom line

The ladder of inference isn’t magic; people will still disagree, and emotions will still arise. But when leaders combine this awareness with emotional agility practices, they can transform potentially destructive conflicts into productive dialogues. By recognizing that our emotions stem from the stories we tell ourselves and that these stories are built on potentially flawed assumptions, we gain the power to choose our responses more intentionally.

The capability to create space between stimulus and response, to unhook from our stories and emotions, and to act from our values represents a fundamental shift in leadership effectiveness. In our complex, rapidly changing environment, leaders who master this skill build stronger relationships, make better decisions, and create cultures where productive disagreement and learning can flourish.

The next time you feel emotionally triggered at work, pause and ask yourself: What story am I telling myself? What assumptions led me here? And most important: How can I respond in a way that aligns with my values and moves us forward? In that space between trigger and response lies your growth as a leader.

1. Covey, S., 2017. Prisoners of Our Thoughts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Foreword; Also see: https://www.viktorfrankl.org/quote_stimulus.html ︎
2. Davis, S., and Congleton, C. 2013. Emotional agility. Harvard Business Review ︎
3. Saffo, P., 2007. Six rules for effective forecasting. Harvard Business Review ︎

The post From Emotional Triggers to Values-Based Leadership: A Practical Framework appeared first on Harvard Business Impact.

The Ladder of Inference: Building Self-Awareness to Be A Better Human-Centered Leader

Craig Dickerson

May 8, 2025

“Contrary to popular belief, studies have shown that people do not always learn from experience, that expertise does not help people root out false information, and that seeing ourselves as highly experienced can keep us from doing our homework, seeking disconfirming evidence, and questioning our assumptions.”[i]

Boost Self-awareness with the Ladder of Inference

A study by Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning focused on the importance of human-centered leadership (HCL),[ii] but getting leaders to change behaviors or even see the need to change can be a challenge. Additionally, HCL is a complex topic with many facets, which begs the question: Where do I start? Helping leaders develop self-awareness might be a good place to consider.

Think of a time you were in the presence of a leader who lacked self-awareness—it shouldn’t be hard. Research indicates that only about 15% of people are sufficiently self-aware[i] and that there is less than a 30% correlation between people’s actual and self-perceived competence.[iii] That same research shows that a leader’s lack of self-awareness negatively impacts decision making, collaboration, and conflict management.

Self-awareness, a fundamental component of emotional intelligence, is a cornerstone of HCL, as it enables leaders to cultivate a deeper understanding of themselves and their impact on others. Leaders with strong self-awareness are attuned to their emotions, strengths, and areas for development, allowing them to make conscious decisions and navigate complex situations with clarity and integrity.

So, self-awareness is important, but how do you help leaders build it? A good first step is teaching them to use the Ladder of Inference, a model introduced by Harvard Professor Emeritus Chris Argyris.[iv]

The Ladder of Inference

The Ladder of Inference illustrates how people unconsciously climb a mental ladder of assumptions and beliefs based on their observations and experiences.

This process occurs rapidly and often subconsciously, leading individuals to filter information, make interpretations, and take action—all of which can be influenced by biases and past experiences. It represents what Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, would call a System 1 process.[v]

• System 1 is the fast, automatic processing that requires little energy.
• System 2 is the rational, conscious, effortful processing.

Kahneman explains how System 1 makes educated guesses to come to quick conclusions but shows no record of how it came to its conclusion. “System 1 does not keep track of alternatives that it rejects, or even the fact that there were alternatives.” The problem is that the guess it makes may be wrong (the conclusion as well) but you will believe it unless System 2 steps in to evaluate it. This often does not happen because System 2 is “lazy” or is often distracted. By using the ladder, we can employ System 2 to guide our conclusions and provide a framework to analyze them, with more faulty conclusions being identified and corrected.

Select data from available information

Imagine a ladder leaning against a wall, sitting in a puddle. The puddle in which the ladder sits is data or facts. The amount of data in any given situation is more than our brains can handle, so filters are applied. Two people looking at the same data will filter and retain different data, but no one will process all the data completely or in the same way. As you step on the first rung of the ladder, your brain selects and triages data, keeping some and ignoring others.

Add meanings to selected data

Up one step on the ladder, our brains push the data through the filters and lenses of our paradigms. These are biases, worldviews, and mindsets. Think of glasses with yellow lenses. When you first put them on, things look yellow; then your brain adjusts and everything looks normal until you take off the glasses, and then everything looks green. What you were looking at never changed, but how you perceived it did.

Interpret the data and make assumptions

On the next rung up the ladder, you interpret the data and begin to assign meaning to it. You make assumptions and fill in gaps. Have you ever been reading an email and realized that you were hearing the writer’s voice and tone in your head? The tone of voice you hear is likely your interpretation being added, and our interpretations are powerfully affected by context, experiences, and culture. This is also the step where you may start to assign valence to the situation: good or bad, threat or reward, benevolent or evil.

Draw conclusions from assumptions

As you get close to the top of the ladder, you draw a conclusion or an inference. From where you stand, your conclusion is clear, obvious, and important. Your inference feels like a fact, and you cannot imagine any other sane person coming to a different one. Because of this certainty, when we share our brilliant insight with others, we feel no need to explain how we arrived at it because the validity of our conclusion is so obvious to us but, sadly, not necessarily to anyone else.[vi]

Adopt beliefs based on assumptions

Adding complexity to the situation is the profound influence of our mental models—our ingrained values, assumptions, and beliefs about the functioning of the world—on the way each of us ascends our respective ladder of inference. To depict this concept visually, one could also liken these mental models to the sides of the ladder, providing structure and coherence to our reasoning process. For example, people who embrace the “think positively” mindset often infer that the world is largely benevolent. On the other hand, those who hold an “expect the worst” mentality are inclined to filter and judge occurrences in a way that reflects their negative outlook.[vi] Carol Dweck’s work points out how profound an impact mindset (fixed or growth) can have on behavior and outcomes.[vii]

This is how different people standing in the same puddle of data can wind up with their ladders against different walls, reaching vastly different conclusions.

Applying the Ladder of Inference to raise self-awareness

Self-awareness should increase the moment a person learns about the ladder. The fact that an opaque and mostly unconscious process is being brought to the consciousness is the first step (pun intended) in raising self-awareness. It is like breathing; if you pay no attention, it happens automatically. However, when you notice your breathing, you can control it. It moves from Kahneman’s System 1 to System 2,[v] from automatic to intentional.

The second step is to slow the process down and examine how we climbed the ladder—an act of self-reflection. What data did we choose? What data did we reject? What assumptions did we make? What biases may have influenced the process? Reflecting on the thought process and examining the assumptions we make can lead to a deeper understanding of ourselves and our interaction with others. This is the beginning of self-awareness.

The Ladder of Inference is easy enough to teach and practice. Most people can recall a time when they jumped to a conclusion that later turned out to be wrong. Have them climb back down the ladder of that conclusion to analyze their reasoning. Also, have them reflect on the consequences of faulty conclusions.

Consistent awareness and evaluation of our ladders should lead to the insight that many of our conclusions that feel like facts are only strongly held opinions, although some learners may need help getting here. It can be uncomfortable to realize that many things you thought were solid facts are actually flimsy opinions, so your ego will put up some resistance.

Why is getting leaders to this realization important? Because, as pointed out earlier, most leaders overestimate their competency, so getting them to be less certain of their conclusions is beneficial. Certainty is the enemy of curiosity. Knowing is a barrier to learning. Why would I learn what I already know? Research shows that two outcomes of rising up the corporate levels of leadership are loss of empathy and an increase in hubris.[viii] The antidote is self-awareness and curiosity; the ladder supports both.

How the Ladder of Inference supports leadership fitness

In Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning’s study on HCL and a more recent paper, we propose that leadership fitness, like physical fitness, requires strength, balance, flexibility, and endurance.[ii] The ladder most directly supports the middle two.

We suggest that part of balance is the “ability to read situations more accurately by challenging subconscious encoding processes that lead us to ignore some cues in favor of others” that is, disrupting unconscious bias and default behavior patterns through metacognition, or thinking about your thinking. After consciously disrupting these thought processes, leaders display greater balance by intentionally choosing leadership behaviors. The ladder is a tool that helps leaders make implicit thought patterns explicit, allowing for analysis, choice, and correction in leadership style.

The ladder supports flexibility by interrupting habits. Does a person have the choice to act differently without noticing their default thinking? Maybe, but the chance seems slim. Imagine that you are driving home from work, tired and hungry. The traffic is really bad, and someone cuts you off. For most people, the response is automatic; the only option is what word is chosen to describe the other driver: jerk, idiot, moron.

However, those are conclusions. If that default process is interrupted and assumptions are evaluated using the ladder, you may realize that the person who cut you off may not be evil or lacking in intelligence and that there are many possible alternate conclusions. You might also realize that you yourself have accidentally cut people off before, and you are not evil or stupid, right? Now that you have access to different possibilities of how to react, you can choose to send positive thoughts toward that person, hoping they get where they are going safely. Before the ladder, you only had options; after the ladder, you have new possibilities of how to act. That is flexibility.

The bottom line

The Ladder of Inference is a simple but powerful tool for self-awareness that can be used in many situations to increase leadership balance and flexibility, supporting human-centered leadership. But this is not the limit of the application of the ladder in leadership. In the next post in this series, we will look at how the ladder can be used to support better decision making, manage productive conflict, and create space for building trust and collaboration.

For more on how the Ladder of Influence supports the four dimension of Leadership Fitness, download our paper “Leadership Fitness: Developing the Capacity to See and Lead Differently Amid Complexity.”

Perspectives

Leadership Fitness: Developing the Capacity to See and Lead Differently Amid Complexity

Download

[i] Tasha Eurich (2018), What Self-Awareness Really Is (and How to Cultivate It), Harvard Business Review.

[ii] Harvard Business School Publishing (2024), Leadership Fitness: Developing the Capability to See and Lead Differently Amid Complexity, Harvard Business School Publishing.

[iii] Erich C. Dierdorff and Robert S. Rubin (2015), Research: We’re Not Very Self-Aware, Especially at Work. Harvard Business Review.

[iv] Chris Argyris (1982), The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning, Organizational Dynamics.

[v] Daniel Kahneman (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Macmillan.

[vi] William R. Noonan (2011), Discussing the Undiscussable: Overcoming Defensive Routines in the Workplace, Rotman Management Magazine.

[vii] Carol Dweck (2016), What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means, Harvard Business Review.

[viii] Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro (2021), Don’t Let Power Corrupt You: How to Exercise Influence Without Losing Your Moral Compass, Harvard Business Review.

The post The Ladder of Inference: Building Self-Awareness to Be A Better Human-Centered Leader appeared first on Harvard Business Impact.

Leading with Empathy: How Understanding Your Ladder of Inference Strengthens Your Leadership

Craig Dickerson

April 17, 2025

Introduction

This is the second in our series exploring how the Ladder of Inference can transform leadership effectiveness. In our first post, we introduced this powerful mental model, which explains how we unconsciously leap from raw data to firm conclusions. Now we’ll expand this framework by adding crucial rungs to the ladder—showing how conclusions harden into beliefs and ultimately drive our actions. By understanding this complete cycle, leaders can develop the self-awareness needed to interrupt automatic thinking patterns, fostering greater empathy and more effective decision making in their organizations.

Revisiting the Ladder of Inference

As a quick summary of the last post, The Ladder of Inference describes the automatic thinking process that humans use, generally unconsciously, to get from facts to a conclusion or action. The model is simple but powerful. Once leaders understand it, they can apply it to reduce bias in decision making, communicate tough decisions, negotiate, resolve conflict, and increase collaboration—and the list goes on.

There is just one problem: We exist in a world overflowing with data. Our brains filter out some data and focus on other data. We then process the selected data by pushing it through our biases, experiences, worldviews, and mindsets to make sense of the situation and apply value judgments. This process fills in any gaps with assumptions and guesses (not much different from generative AI hallucinations), and we make conclusions about what is happening and what it means. It is important to note that this process is constant, automatic, and largely unconscious, unless we make an intentional effort to make it conscious through analysis or reflection.

By continuously reflecting on their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, self-aware leaders gain insight into how their actions influence team dynamics and organizational culture. This heightened self-awareness not only fosters personal growth and resilience but also facilitates authentic connections with team members, creating an environment where trust and collaboration thrive. Self-awareness empowers leaders to lead with authenticity and empathy, embodying the principles of human-centered leadership and inspiring others to do the same.

Expanding the Ladder: How Beliefs Become Actions

One of the consequences of this process is that conclusions feel like facts when they are mostly opinions. To illustrate, let’s examine a hypothetical situation. Javier, a marketing director, and Alex, a product development lead, both work for a large global company. They are scheduled to meet to discuss a cross-functional project and Javier is running late. If Alex thinks, “Javier is five minutes late for our meeting,” that is an observable fact. However, if he thinks, “Javier is rude and disrespectful,” that is a conclusion that contains opinions, judgments, and assumptions. This distinction is important because, as mentioned in the first post, Daniel Kahneman’s research points out that if a conclusion is not challenged or analyzed, it will become a belief.² In Alex’s mind, “Javier is rude” is now a fact. Poor Javier. That is the next rung on the ladder: I believe Javier is rude.

The final rung on our extended ladder is the action you take based on the belief that you have formed. This can be a belief about a situation, a person, or a group of people. Back to our scenario:

• If Alex is thinking, “Javier is rude,” what emotions might that conclusion generate in Alex while he waits for Javier?
• How might Alex act toward Javier when he finally arrives?
• Should we expect Alex to be in a productive mindset for the meeting if Javier eventually arrives?

Let’s press pause on this unfolding scene to look at the judgment “being late is rude.” We know from research done by Erin Meyer that opinions on punctuality are highly cultural. Scheduling (linear time versus flexible time) is one of the dimensions that she uses to describe different cultures.⁴ Simply put, some cultures value punctuality and others don’t; being late is not considered rude in many cultures. As an example: The U.S. scores high on linear time, and Mexico and South American countries would typically score high on flexible time.

In our scenario, if Javier comes from a flexible time culture while Alex operates with a linear time mindset, their differing perspectives create an invisible barrier. The conclusion “being late is rude” would never occur to Javier, but Alex believes that “everyone knows it is rude to be late.” Neither one is right or wrong; they simply have different perspectives, biases, and assumptions.

So, Javier shows up 10 minutes late, excited to meet with Alex to discuss some important business challenge, but is shocked when Alex is in a foul mood and does not seem equally excited to collaborate. Alex’s belief that Javier is rude is confirmed when Javier shows up late and jumps straight into the agenda, acting like nothing is wrong. Javier didn’t even acknowledge being late or offer an apology! How rude (more confirmation for Alex). Javier starts to get the feeling that Alex is not very friendly or cooperative, and so might even be a little rude. Each party thinks the other is rude.

Stop and think about a time when you might have been in a similar situation. How did your assumptions lead to a different conclusion than those of others around you?

From where each person stands, on top of their ladder, their conclusion is clear, obvious, and important. Their inference feels like a fact, and they cannot imagine a sane person coming to a different one.

There is one last detail to the model: It is a loop. The conclusion that a person reaches will impact the data they select and the belief they apply in the next interaction. If Alex thinks, “Javier is rude,” he will tend to notice data that supports that belief and discard data that discredits it. This is commonly called confirmation bias. Unless the loop is interrupted, every interaction strengthens the conclusion, to the point that Alex’s conclusion that “Javier is rude” is stronger than Javier’s actual behavior and becomes the “story” Alex thinks when he thinks about Javier. This is incredibly powerful, and it happens in every human interaction and relationship. Consider the impact to their collaboration. What might this mean for the outcomes of their project?

To recap Alex’s ladder of inference loop:

1. Javier is late — data
2. Late is rude — assumption
3. Javier was rude — conclusion
4. Javier is a rude person — story

The way to break this loop is for one of them to stop and reflect on his ladder. Brené Brown has often said in her podcasts that when she is having negative feelings about another person, she asks herself, “What story am I telling myself about them that is making me feel this way?” She notices the emotion, then looks for the story causing the emotion. In Rising Strong, she discusses the concept of “the story I’m telling myself” as a tool for recognizing when we’re creating narratives based on limited information.⁵ Once you see the story, you can climb back down your ladder and get curious about the other person’s ladder.

Applying the Ladder of Inference to Access Empathy and Compassion

From Alex and Javier, we can see how two people with the bases of their ladders in the same pool of data can wind up with conflicting beliefs that could lead to a downward spiral in their relationship. How can this vicious cycle be broken? One or both of them must climb down their ladder. If one of them realizes that their story about the other is not a fact but an opinion and that there are many other probable stories, that creates room for curiosity. In other words, if one of them can suspend their judgment of the other long enough to look for data that challenges their story or if they reflect on the meaning that they are applying to the data, they may be able to adjust their story from negative to neutral or even positive.

Looking at our scenario, Javier was impacted by the way Alex acted, which was a result of Alex’s story. If Alex suspended his judgment of Javier’s tardiness or thought about the possibility that his inference was incorrect, he might think, “Javier may be having a bad day” or “Javier might be dealing with a crisis” as options alongside “Javier is rude.” This could lead to a quite different outcome in their meeting.

Curiosity leads to empathy, which creates space for compassion. The ladder of inference is the brain’s way of making split-second judgments, which tend to be singular in nature. These judgments can help us stay alive, but they can also lead us astray when we don’t consciously interrogate them or learn to suspend them.

Just as knowing is the enemy of learning, judgment is the enemy of empathy. Judgment says, “I am right” (because if I were wrong, I would have already changed my mind); empathy asks, “What am I missing?” or “What do I not understand about the other?” Judgment closes off new possibilities; empathy and curiosity open up greater possibilities.

One last thought on compassion. What if Alex, in response to Javier’s tardiness, noticed his judgment and said to himself, “I don’t know what Javier is dealing with. I will forgive his being late and not worry about it.” How might that change the meeting’s outcome? This simple shift—from judgment to compassion—represents the fundamental mindset change that separates reactive managers from thoughtful leaders.

How the Ladder of Inference Supports Leadership Fitness

This ability to recognize and challenge our automatic thought patterns forms the cornerstone of what we call “Leadership Fitness.” In a recent post, we proposed that the first step in developing Leadership Fitness is to challenge one’s thinking: “Leaders need to be able to step back and look objectively at their underlying assumptions, biases, triggers and thought patterns so they can test which ones are helping them and which ones are holding them back.” The dynamic environment that we are in demands that leaders constantly assess their thinking, understanding that patterns and solutions of the past may no longer be effective or relevant.

As this post illustrates, the Ladder of Inference provides a framework for helping leaders assess their thinking about situations, relationships, and people. Assumptions and biases, particularly confirmation bias, play a fundamental role in the development of our stories. Our stories become the thought patterns that limit curiosity, empathy, and possibility.

Our stories also form the triggers that cause us to react emotionally. The next blog post will take a closer look at this dynamic. We will explore how to understand the root of our triggers so that we can disarm them, taking greater control over our emotions.

1. Eurich, T., 2018. What self-awareness really is (and how to cultivate it). Harvard business review, 4. ︎
2. Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan. ︎
3. Adapted from: Howie, P., 2006. Working with the ladder of inference. Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Psychodrama Association Journal, (15), pp. 68 – 75. ︎
4. Meyer, E., 2014. Map out cultural conflicts on your team. Harvard business review. ︎
5. Brown, B. 2015. Rising strong. New York: Spiegel & Grau. ︎

The post Leading with Empathy: How Understanding Your Ladder of Inference Strengthens Your Leadership appeared first on Harvard Business Impact.