Avoiding Mental Shortcuts That Reduce Trust and Influence

In my last post I considered how predictable emotional regulation contributes to trust and influence, especially under stress. Here we’ll look at how effective interpersonal interpretation, especially under stress, further contributes to trust and influence.

Let’s face it, even the smartest humans aren’t capable of processing all the data around them at any given time. Especially in times of stress, our brains take mental shortcuts called heuristics to understand and respond to our experiences. We tell ourselves stories (referred to as narrative cognition) to make sense of what’s happening in and around us and to determine how to respond in the future.

This interpretation of data around us can be very helpful in protecting us from danger or spotting opportunities. However, we can be very wrong in our interpretations, leading to a breakdown in trust and credibility.

How Ineffective Interpersonal Interpretation Can Erode Trust

Consider the polarization of politics. A University of Chicago poll out last summer showed 75% of the two major American political parties think people in the other party “are generally bullies.” Is it true that three-quarters of U.S. Democrats or Republicans are, in fact, bullies? Or could it be that each party uses heuristics and narrative cognition to interpret the voices they hear from the other party? 

We judge people by clues, signals and selective data all the time. In his book Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know, Malcolm Gladwell says:

We think we can easily see into the hearts of others based on the flimsiest of clues. We jump at the chance to judge [others]. We would never do that to ourselves, of course. We are nuanced and complex and enigmatic.

We not only do this with people we don’t know; we do this with those closest to us: family, friends, colleagues and customers. I hear it from those I coach all the time about key relationships:

• I don’t think she likes me anymore.
• It sure seems like he wants me fired.
• The sales team doesn’t trust us now.
• He’s become more committed to work-life balance than the job.
• She’s distracted working from home post-COVID.

These are examples of interpretations made using selected data points. Are the conclusions true?

To Build Trust and Influence, Challenge Your Shortcuts

Several years ago, I wrote about a helpful model developed by Chris Argyris at Harvard Business School called the Ladder of Inference. Argyris explains through this mental model that one of the most important skills of leadership and influence, especially in times of stress, is the ability to challenge your own interpretations.

According to the Ladder of Inference, humans have developed shortcuts and narratives to explain actions and events, so they have to accept the inherent bias and flaws associated with their interpretations. We just can’t know everything that was said, done and is happening at any given time. 

You can’t reliably say, “He said that, so he must think…” or “She did this, so she must be…”

Great leaders, parents, colleagues, friends and community members continuously remind themselves to:

1. 1. Be curious about other data points. Start with the mental position that I do not have all the data and I need to investigate before making assumptions. This will lead you to discovery first, which will improve your interpretations.
   2. Check your assumptions with others. Seek trusted counsel and consider asking the actual people whose actions you’re tempted to judge. In the book Crucial Conversations, the authors recommend asking others to relate “their story” and then trying to understand how they are substantiating their story before fully accepting your own narrative interpretation. 
   3. Maintain flexible conclusions and beliefs about people. I was one of the many who were captivated by the Serial podcast about the murder conviction of Adnan Syed. While the truth about what happened 33 years ago remains somewhat unknown, a Baltimore judge recently vacated his conviction out of “justice and fairness” because there was new evidence that needed to be considered that wasn’t in his first trial.

      Sometimes we prematurely “convict” others without having all the evidence or knowing what was going on with that person at the time. That’s why it’s so important that we maintain openness to changing our beliefs. That flexibility can go a long way toward helping to rebuild trust.

   Interpretations about people, teams and events are necessary parts of human survival, especially in times of stress. However, it’s unjust and frankly lazy if we don’t make the effort to challenge our interpretations on a regular basis by following these three simple steps. 

   When we refine our interpretations, we build more trust with others and ultimately have more influence.

   Where might you need to challenge your interpretations right now?

• Tweet
• 
• 

Comments

comments