The Fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning

t>rganization/ Peter M. Senge,.. (et aLj.

.

p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
I. Organizational effectiveness—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Wk,rk
gmups—Handbooks. manuals. etc. 3. Senge, Peter M. Fifth
discipline. I. Senge, Peter M. LI. Title: 5th discipline
(leldbook. Ill. Tide: Learning organization.
HD58.9.F54 1994
658.4’02—dc2O 93-50130
CIP
ISBN 0-385-47256-0
Copyright © 1994 by Peter M. Senge. Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts,
Richard B. Ross, and Biyan J. Smith
.‘dl Rights Reserved
Pnntedin the United States of America

D©i1i©
Fieldikook
PETER M SENGE
ART KLEINER Strategies and Tools for Building
CHARLOTTE ROBERTS
RICHARD B. ROSS
a Learning Organization
BRYAN 1. SMITH

, l1’
,,
 The Ladder of Inference by Rick Ross

excerpt from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. 1994 by Peter M. Senge,

Art Kleiner. Charlotte Roberts,
Richard B. Ross, and Bryan J. Smith. .New York: Doubleday 242-24
6.

Tht ref/exivr.
Ioop(our
beIe1s
af-fet
I kVfl4t
‘ daz’L
W
i S/et

iie.)

We live in a world of self-generating beliefs which remain large

ly untested. We adopt those
beliefs because they are based on conclusions, which are infer
red from what we observe, plus
our past experience. Our ability to achieve the results we truly
desire is eroded by our feelings
that:

• Our beliefs are the truth.

• The truth is obvious.
• Our beliefs are based on real data.
• The data we select are the real data.

For example: I am standing before the executive team, mak

ing a presentation. They all seem
engaged and alert, except for Larry, at the end of the table, who
seems bored out of his mind. He
turns his dark, morose eyes away from me and puts his hand
to his mouth. He doesn’t ask any
questions until I’m almost done, when he breaks in: “1 think
we should ask for a full report.” In
this culture, that typically means, “Let’s move on.” Everyone
starts to shuffle their papers and put
their notes away. Larry obviously thinks that I’m incompetent
which is a shame, because these
--

ideas are exactly what his department needs. Now that I think
of it, he’s never liked my ideas.
Clearly, Larry is a power-hungry jerk. By the time I’ve retur
ned to my seat, I’ve made a decision:
I’m not going to include anything in my report that Larry can
use. He wouldn’t read it, or, worse
still, he’d just use it against me. It’s too bad I have an enem
y who’s so prominent in the company.
 In those few seconds before I take my seat, I have climbed
up what Chris Argyris calls a “ladder
of inference,” a common mental pathway of increasing abstr
--
action, often leading to misguided
beliefs:

• I started with the observable data: Larry’s comment, whic

h is so self- evident that it
would show up on a videotape recorder...
• . .I selected some details about Larry’s behavior: his glan
.
ce away from me and apparent
yawn. (I didn’t notice him listening intently one mom
ent before)...
• . I added some meanings of my own, based on the culture
. .

around me (that Larry

wanted me to finish up)...
• . I moved rapidly up to assumptions about Larry’s current
. .

state (he’s bored)...

• .. and I concluded that Larry, in general, thinks I’m inco
.

mpetent. In fact, I now believe

that Larry (and probably everyone whom I associate with
Larry) is dangerously opposed
to me...
• .. . thus, as I reach the top of the ladder, I’m plotting again
st him.
It all seems so reasonable, and it happens so quickly,
that I’m not even aware I’ve done it.
Moreover, all the rungs of the ladder take place in my
head. The only parts visible to anyone else
are the directly observable data at the bottom, and my own
decision to take action at the top. The
rest of the trip, the ladder where I spend most of my time
, is unseen, unquestioned, not
considered fit for discussion, and enormously abstract.
(These leaps up the ladder are sometimes
called “leaps of abstraction.”)

I’ve probably leaped up that ladder of inference man

y times before. The more I believe that Larry
is an evil guy, the more I reinforce my tendency to notic
e his malevolent behavior in the future.
This phenomenon is known as the “reflexive loop”:
our beliefs influence what data we select
next time. And there is a counterpart reflexive loop in
Larry’s mind: as he reacts to my strangely
antagonistic behavior, he’s probably jumping up som
e rungs on his own ladder. For no apparent
reason, before too long, we could find ourselves beco
ming bitter enemies.
Larry might indeed have been bored by my presentati
on or he might have been eager to read
--

the report on paper. He might think I’m incompetent,

he might be shy, or he might be afraid to
embarrass me. More likely than not, he has inferred
that I think he’s incompetent. We can’t know,
until we find a way to check our conclusions.

Unfortunately, assumptions and conclusions are parti

cularly difficult to test. For instance,
suppose I wanted to find out if Larry really thought I was
incompetent. I would have to pull him
aside and ask him, “Larry, do you thinlcI’manidiot?”
EVen if Fôi5üldfiui iy to phrase the
question, how could I believe the answer? Would I answ
er him honestly? No, I’d tell him I
thought he was a terrific colleague, while privately think
ing worse of him for asking me.
Now imagine me, Larry, and three others in a senior man
agement team, with our untested
assumptions and beliefs. When we meet to deal with
a concrete problem, the air is filled with
misunderstandings, communication breakdowns, and
feeble compromises. Thus, while our
individual IQs average 140, our team has a collective
IQ of 85.
The ladder of inference explains why most people don’
t usually remember where their deepest
attitudes came from. The data is long since lost to mem
ory, after years of inferential leaps.
Sometimes I find myself arguing that “The Republica
ns are so-and-so,” and someone asks me
why I believe that. My immediate, intuitive answer is, “I
don’t know. But I’ve believed it for
years.” In the meantime, other people are saying, “The
Democrats are so-and-so,” and they can’t
 tell you why, either. Instead, they may dredge up an old plati
tude which once was an assumption.
Before long, we come to think of our longstanding assu
mptions as data (“Well, I know the
Republicans are such-and-such because they’re so-and-so
”), but we’re several steps removed
from the data.

Using the Ladder of Inference

You can’t live your life without adding meaning or draw

ing conclusions. It would be an
inefficient, tedious way to live. But you can improve your
communications through reflection,
and by using the ladder of inference in three ways:

• Becoming more aware of your own thinking and reaso

ning (reflection);
• Making your thinking and reasoning more visible to
others (advocacy);
• Inquiring into others’ thinking and reasoning (inquiry).

Once Larry and I understand the concepts behind the “ladd

er of inference,” we have a safe way
to stop a conversation in its tracks and ask several ques
tions:
• What is the observable data behind that statement?
• Does everyone agree on what the data is?
• Can you run me through your reasoning?
• How did we get from that data to these abstract assu
mptions?
• When you said “[your inference],” did you mean “[my
interpretation of it]”?
I can ask for data in an open-ended way: “Larry, what was
your reaction 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
you 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
perceptions and what we have in common. (You migh
t say, “I notice I’m moving up the ladder of
inference, and maybe we all are. What’s the data here
?”)
This type of conversation is not easy. For example, as
Chris Argyris cautions people, when a fact
seems especially self-evident, be careful. If your man
ner 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 reallysubstantiatdtit it’ëiifiëcFiiid
nli.ti,’.- by more than one person’s
observation, or by a technological record (a tape reco
rding or photograph).
Embedded into team practice, the ladder becomes a 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 surprised yourself to see how you
got there, once you trace out the links.
 kntil3Iodeis ‘253

B alan C g In ir y
1 an
LXUIYOC&CY

thk Ross, Charlotte Roberts

anagers in Western corporations have received a
lifeti of train-
LV ing in being forceful, articulate “advocates” andme“pro
blem
uhers.” They know how to present and argue stron
gly for their views.
Is rise in the organization, they are forced to deal with
more
omplex and interdependent issues where no one indiv
idual “knows the
4I1wer,’ and where the only viable option is for grou
ps of informed and
ôinmitted individuals to think together to arrive at new
insights. At this
point, they need to learn to skillfully balance advocacy
with inquiry.
When balancing advocacy and inquiry, we lay out
our reasoning and
thinking, and then encourage others to challenge us.
“Here is my view
nd here is how I have arrived at it. How does it sound
to you? What
makes sense to you and what doesn’t? Do you see any ways
I can im
prove it?”
Balancing inquiry and advocacy is sometimes hard
on people’s cher
thcd opinions, which is one reason why it is so difficult
to master. But
ho payoff comes in the more creative and insightful
realizations that
OCcur when people combine multiple perspectives.
We don’t recommend inquiry alone. People almo
st always have a
tdcwpoint to express, and it is important to express it—i
n a context which
llows you to learn more about others’ views while they learn
more about
,urs, Nor do we recommend that you switch in rote
fashion from an
tdamant assertion (“Here’s what I say”) to a question
(“Now what do
you say?”) and back again. Balancing inquiry and advocacy means de
veloping a variety of skills. It’s as if all the “colors” of conv
ersation could
be spread out on an imaginary palette. As the creator of your
part of the
conversation, you should be able to incorporate styles
from all four quad
rants of the palette. 0
1 “I his diagram is an expansion of
‘

This palette chart, of course, is only the beginning ‘

of a taxonomy of JI. the “Inquiry/Advocoy matrix”
roles which people can play in conversation. There are
probably a dozen eveoped by Diana Mcloin Smith.
more distinct combinations of varying levels of inqu
iry and advocacy,
rach with a different impact.
There are dysfunctional forms of both advocacy and
inquiry. For ex
.tmple, in organizations, adroit people can skew the
inquiry process by
 4

7
S///I1t4I d/J’JJ1O7L
(81aic, adk-dcac:y
Zid Lfl fry
flue:
a/f
9 ent’tiiey tL’rloL,f
m4.e4( €4fo fl/ny 9
Yeat ,., Ld)lt4/44V
Co//et,L, t-hisK,I-1j 4.
4sserëij.. ‘JeYej e4aI/cI elSst, tL44. ê?)4P.l
-
VA4t /J-),, a,,d o,heyJ- ‘ibaut
i4-iIy /Sy 1
’ tvts
/&‘ Q
a Li
L) b eiM9
1
&p/4
: 1njn H,’eJ
LYI,’7C4/ R//é,ckn &iv’-’ npn’fr,o,.
:
5
oY
‘.‘ &1e L4.o yld ‘oJ-içç 9
olba f*’uH 4 v0c4€y afl(
1id thy / C’4.’. 5e tn uI
- W/d
9
iL tI-ia’ foJe- “inded(Ayj-
c-) LJflC6/O)qa/)

0
y8
S/4naiHq: M4k
wh, peai
,OYoCeJf, A,4s’ I-7
to
,
‘%e 4i
flJ’o /
fnjiny:
7 flQ4
4L4.- t.v,,%,ut S/9 ‘7cA,
bwt Keen, of a/i
‘-ht

Wi’AdYaiv,nj:
o’t a f
Ool, 4k7,
N
N. Lint’

c.

I
,
4-c;.

INQUIRY I/jilt—

relentless “interrogating,” without caring at all for the

person being
questioned. In the same vein, advocacy can feel like an
inquisition if the-
advocate simply “dictates’ his point of view, while refus
ing to make his•Z•
reasoning process visible. People who are unwilling
to expose their
thinking may also “withdraw” into silence, instead of takin
g the oppor
tunity to learn through observation.
One of the most destructive conversational forms is “pol
iticking,” in
which there is no overt argument—just a relentless refus
al to learn while
giving the impression of balancing advocacy and
inquiry. In workshops,
we see this form sometimes when people who have
read The F!fth Dis
 ___
_

‘rental Jkxkls ‘ 255

ipline play “The Beer Game.” Thi
s game is a mock production-and
distribution system simulation, dem
ons trating how the structure of a sys
k’m determines behavior. From the
description of the game in The Fift
1)iscipline, some readers conclu h
de the best winning strategy is delibe
•tely under-ordering beer and rem r- he Fifth OisdpIine p. 27ff.
aining in backlog throughout the
game. When these people show up IL
to play, they cling to their mistaken
impression at all costs. Their strateg
y is disastrous for their team’s score,
.ind it would be disastrous in real life
, because businesses which remain
in backlog don’t keep their custom
ers. Nonetheless, these players refuse
to consider any other course of play
. When people ask them to change
for the sake of their teammates, the
y don’t argue back. They simply call
attention to their “superior” status:
“Look, I’ve read the book. Trust
I know what I’m doing.” me.
It is said that each of us has a nat
ural predilection toward either
advocacy or inquiry. Debate and law
teach advocacy; journalism and
social work (if they’re practiced well)
teach inquiry. Men are rewarded
more for advocacy; women are mo
re rewarded for inquiry. In the Sou
women are even taught that it is a th,
sign of poor breeding to state wha
you want or need, (Instead of saying t
, “Can you get me a mint julep?”
thirsty woman would say, “It’s a terrib a
ly hot day. Wouldn’t it be wonder
ful if we all had some special refres
hment?”) During the 1970s, many
women had a hard time with advoca
cy, but now that more women hav
joined managerial ranks in organizatio e
ns, members of both genders are
becoming more adept at balancing the
two forms,

ProitocoI. Ifor kalaincirig advoc&cy

inqiuliry
BACING ADVOCACY AND
INQUIRY IS ONE WAY FOR
INDIVIDUALS, BY
themselv es, to begin changing a large organiz
ation from within. You
V

don’t need any mandate, 5 budget or approval to begin. You wil

V

alwaysbe-rewarded-with betterrulafi l almost

oishi ndi reputation for integ-
•• V

base protocols were adapted,

nty. V

The purpose of these conversational Nub many changes, From course

recipes is to help people learn material developed for Leading
the skills of balancing inquiry and adv
ocacy. Use them whenever a con-
versation offers you an opportunity Learning Organizaiions(1993, Endnitas,
to learn—for example, wh
is considering a difficult point that en a team Calif.: Ross Partners); from material
requires information and participa-
tion from everyone on the tea Jeveloped by Diana Mclain
m.° Smith and V

dso see “Opening Lines” (page 263) bihp McArthur of Action Design; and
.
from The Fifth Discipline, pp. 200—I.
56 ‘ I lie lieth I)iscipliiie l’ieldh4Hk

t() VD( ‘L{, V( R lURU\K

l) \f)\ Df ‘.\‘ 1.
tliittkiiig riiIle ii €,/k die ,,,.
hu/cli’r Of i,if,’nci’
‘l( ift•ltf )•

Wh.t to (LI)
VVhat to say
‘tate oii r assi Iltiptions. and
1Icn’ s IL/ult I think. and iu’rt’
lescnbe the data that led to them. In w I ot thurt’.
1xplain your assumptions.
“I assumed that
Lake onr reas(min explicit. “I came to this t’onclusu,n
I)L’CttEISe

1xplain the context o your point

)i view: who wiH he aflected by
hat von propose, how they will
be affected, and why.
Cive examples of what you pro—
Th get a clear picture t what I’m
pose. even if they’re hypothetical
t’alking about, imagine that iJou re
r metaphoncal. ‘lie customer who will be
affected.
s you speak, try to picture the
other peoples perspectives on
what von are saving.

Publicly test your (vnclusions and assu

mptions.

What to do
What to say
ncoIIrage others to explore your
“What do you think about what I
model, your assumptions, and
just said?” or “Do you see any
nur data.
flaws in my reasoning? or “What
((Iii 1/011 (1(1(1?
efrain from de(ensiveness when
\( n t r K [eas are p testion
ed. [1
vouLre advocating sonieth
in
vorthwhile. then it will only et
tronger by being tested.
 Ientcd Models ‘ 257
What to (tO
What to av

t4eaI where oii are least clear in

one aspect winch rjvu
ilir thinking. Hather than making
iiziht help inc think through
HI ‘i ilnerable, it (lefiIse
s the
lorce of advocates who are op
posed to von, and invites improve—
II lent.

Kven when advocating: listen, stay

“Do you see it dfferently?”
open, and encourage others to
[)roide dilfe rent views.

I.

‘-.

2. PROTOCOLS FOR IMPROVE

D INQUIRY:
.sk others to make their thinking pro
cess vi3ible.
r\
What to do
What to say
Gently walk others down the “What leads you to conclude
ladder of inference and find out that” “What data do you have for
what data they are operating from.
that?” “What causes you to cay
that?”
a Use unaggressive language, partic
Instead of “‘What do you mean?”
ularly with people who are not
or “Whats your proof?” say, “Ca
familiar with these skills. Ask in a n
you help me understand your
way which does not provoke
thinking here?”
defensiveness or “lead the wit
ness.”
Draw out their reasoning. Find
“What is the signficance of that?”
out as much as you can about why
“How does this relate to your oth
they are saving what they’re er
eoncerns?” “Where does your
saving.
reasoning go next?”
Explain your reasons tor
inquiring, “I’m asking you about your as
md how your inquiry relates to
umptions here because..
your own concerns, hopes, and
needs.
258 .[heFilIhDicctplineFieldbo
ok

(‘(nIif)are i,our assumptions

to theirs.

That to (10
What to say
E’st what they say by asking
r “how teould your proposal
broader contexts, or for exa
mples . affect Is this similar
to Can you describe a
typical example
Check your understanding of
what “sin I correct that you’re cay
they have said. -
ing
Listen for the new understandin
g
that may emerge. Don’t conc
en
trate on preparing to des
troy
the other person’s argument
or
promote your own agenda.

3. PROTOCOLS FOR FA
CING A POINT OF VIEW
WHICH YOU DISAGR WITH
EE:
What to do
What to say
gain, inquire about what has
“I-low did you arrive at this
led the person to that view.
view?” “Are you taking into
account data that I have no
t con
sidered?”
Make sure you truly understan
d “ff1 understand you corre
the view, ctly,
you’re saying that.. .“

Explore, listen, and offer your

“Have you considered...
own views in an open way.
Listen for the larger meaning
that may come out of honest,
open sharing of alternative
mental models.
Use your left-hand column as
a “When you say such-and-s
resource. uch, I
rcorrij that it means..
Raise your concerns and state
“I have a hard time seeing
what is leading you to have that,
because of this reasoning..
them.

-ww
w
I. lR)TiX’DL.5 V( )R WI—lEN 11 )L”RE AT .\N L” l55
What to do
I•:iibrice the impasse. and tease
ipart the current thinking. Thia
nay discover that ociising on
data hnngs you all down the
ladder of infrence.)
Look frr information which will
help people move forward.
Ask if there is any way you might
together design an experiment
or inquiry which could provide
new information.
Listen to ideas as if for the first
time.
Consider each person’s mental
model as a piece of a larger
puzzle.
Ask what data or logic might
change their views,
Ask for the group’s help in
redesigning the situation.
Don’t let conversation stop with
an “agreement to disagree.”
Avoid building your “case” when
someone else is spealdng from a
different point of view.
kntalModtha259
l
What to say
What (10 we know J)r a fact?”
‘e’hat (Ic) we sense is
..
trige. but
Iiace no data for 1/et?
1’hat don’t tue know?”
“What is unknowithle?
‘iVhat do we agree upon, and
what do we disagree on?”
“Are we startingfrom two rery
different sets of’ assumptions
here? Where do they come
from?”
“What, then, would have to
happen before you would con
sider the alternative?”
“It feels like we’re getting into an
impasse and I’m afraid we might
walk away without any better
understanding. Have you got any
ideas that will help us clarify
our thinking?”
“1 don’t understand the assump
tions underlying our disagree
inent.”
260 • 1’he Fifth Discipline Fieldb
ook

57 ConveraiionaI Reciipes
Robert Putnam

The help Robert Putnam, a pa

rtner in Action Design, gave
of the book emerged from his us in this part
uot* on this piece for us, wh
uxis based upon a more in-dep ich in turn
th article for action science pra
“Recipes and Reflective Learn ctitioners:
ing: ‘What Would Prevent You
It That Way?’ “by Robert Pu from Saying
tnam, in The Reflective Turn:
in and on Educational Pra Case Studies
ctice, (1991, New York: Te
Press). Philip McArthuir wh ach ers College
ose “Opening Lines” (page 263
example of recipes, is also a ) provide an
partner in Action Design.

People who are learning reflec

tion and inquiry skills very
velop a repertoire of stock quickly de
phrases. I call these phrases
cause most of them are used “recipes” be
like step-by-step procedures
particular response. For instan for getting a
ce, here is a conversation wh
an in-house consultant, is try ere “Paul,”
ing to help “Linda,” a superv
the assumptions underlying isor, delve into
a troublesome incident where
been fired: someone had

PAUL: Are you and the other

supervisors going to talk abo
incident, to learn from it? ut this
LINDA: I’m not going to bring
it up.
PAUL: What prevents you from
bringing it up?
LINDA: Nothing prevents me
. What do you want me to say?
Later; Paul reflected, “I seeme
d to get myself into trouble wit
line that I couldn’t get mysel h that
f out of.” Then he described wh
through his mind at that mome at went
nt: “Am I handling it right?
concerned about what I’m doing? Am I too
Ani I getting stuck in the techni
que?”

Tke value oif recipes

PAUL’S REFLECTIONS SU
GGEST EXACTLY ThE DIF
FICULTIES WE EXPECT
the early stages of using any new technique. It fee IN
got into difficulty, he doubted his ls unnatural. When he
ability to follow-through consis
And his self-consciousness made tently.
it even less likely that he wo
uld follow
 eneaiMo1s.261
hnqh competently. At first glance, you might assume that
he was in a
,iI,lt, double bind; he didn’t have the sophistication to use
inquiry
pjhnIques with skill, so he was stuck with “recipes”—ca
nned remarks
êjt “parrot” (as Paul himself pointed out) what a skilled interveno
r
niy, and that would inevitably “get him in trouble.”
ilut the learning of skills begins with recipes. For insta
nce, if you
Jekle the ladder of inference (see page 242) is useful, how do you learn
o ipply it? Without practice, the concept won’t be second nature; but
It’s second nature, you can’t practice with it effectivel
y. So you
dinrt..cut the dilemma by following a set of rules:

Identi1y the conclusions someone is making.

Ask for the data that lead to the conclusion.
Inquire into the reasoning that connects data and conc
lusion.
4 Infer a possible belief or assumption.
State your inference and test it with the person.

Wr%iig recipes into 6

o
o lescence
CJPES LIKE THESE PRODUCE USEFUL DATA
, AND THEY COME QUICKLY
tthe tongue. Their vividness may also aid in focusing refle
ction.
But there is a caveat. Rules and guidelines can play a
vital role only
hen we deliberately use them to move beyond rule- and
guideline
ased behavior. Recipes must be made to work themselve
s out of a job.
Here are some rules and guidelines for doing so. (Of
course, these
also recipes; so they, too, must be made to work them
selves out of a
job.)
Examine your own conversations latei
Describe and reflect upon your use of the “recipes.” Paul
, for
instance, used “What prevents you?” as a kind of advocacy, impl
ying
that Linda was hypocritical. But through his own retrospec
tive cii
tique, Paul realized the prejudgment he had made: “I see
now,
maybe it wasn’t inconsistent for her to say, ‘I don’t want to
talk about
it now.’ It may have been just a timing kind of thing
. But I wasn’t
hearing that. I was sort of forcing it into an inconsistency
kind of
thing.” For Paul, this sort of self-judgment is an invaluable
way to
learn.
I Seek out generic strategies for improving your use of “reci
pes.”
When you look at your earlier conversations, try to figur
e out gen
262 a The Fifth Discipline Fleidhook

eral strategies for various impasses

. For instance, Paul worked with a
manager named Mike, who had
given a mixed message to a subord
nate. Over and over, Paul asked i
Mike what had led him not to say
more directly what he really wante
d. Later, listening to tapes of the
conversation, Paul realized a max
im: rather than getting people in
situations like Mike’s to admit the
y are wrong, you can be more help
ful by naming how they are caught
in a dilemma and focusing on how
they can manage it more successfu
lly. Paul went on to use this maxim
very successfully in work with oth
er people.
a Put yoursdf in the other person
s vantage point.
This is a difficult rule to remember
to follow. Paul, for instance,
with all his training and reflection,
still found himself advocating his
point ofview in a series of highly
charged meetings about downsizing
Even his “recipes” were just sub
tle ways of trying to manipulate
plant manager, whose name was a
Greg, to change his mind.. But fi
nally, when Greg responded to one
of Paul’s recipes by saying what
he feared his boss would do; Pau
l (as he said’ later) felt something
shift within him. He began to talk
openly in the group about how he
might think differently “if I put
myself. in Greg’s shoes.” Greg, in
response, articulated a breakthro
ugh scenario. Gradually the gro
worked through its impasse and up
developed a proposal for restructu
ing their division more intelligently.: r
• Askfor the perspective of the
people you’re working with
By this time, Paul had moved bey
ond recipes. He was able to ask
the people he worked with; “Am
I inviting enough inquiry in my own
advocacy?’ I tried to. but I don’t
know if it wasjust pro forma.” His
interventions had become Iessstilte
d,. more natural. Andhis attention
had turned away from “Will I or wo
n’t I get them to do what I think
we should?” and more to “What can
we accomplish?”’
Recipes, when you first start usi
ng them, are gimmicks. You’ll use
them within your taken-for-grant
ed way of framing the situation. Bu
you gain experience with them, the t as
frame too may shift. You may be abl
to jump, without planning in adv e
ance exactly how to do it, from sup
cial technique to a deeper sense of erfi
practice.

38 Opeiliiig
Philip MArthur
When...
Strong views are expressed with-
out any reasoning or
illustrations..,
The discussion goes off on an
apparent tangent...
You doubt the relevance of your
own thoughts...
Two members pursue a topic at
length while others observe..,
Several views are advocated at
once...
You perceive a negative reaction
in others...
You perceive a negative reaction
in yourself...
Others appear
uninfluenceable...
taLtodtha263
Li]IIes
...youmightsay...
“You may be right, but I’d like to
understand more. What leads you
to believe...?”
“i’m unclear how that connects to
what we’ve been saying. Can you
say how you see it as relevant?”
“This may not be relevant now. If
so, let me know and I will wait.”
“I’d like to give my reaction to
what you two have said sofar and
then see what you and others
think.”
“We now have three ideas on the
table [say what they are]. I sug
gest we address them one at a
time. . .“
“When you said [give illustration]
.. I had the impression you
.
were feeling [fill in the emotion].
Ifso, I’d like to understand what
upset you. Is there something I’ve
said or done?”
“This may be more my problem
than yours, but when you said
[give illustration]. Ifelt. Am
.. . .
I misunderstanding what you said
or intended?”
“Is there anything that I can say
or do that would convince you
otherwise?”