We assume when we enter a political debate that it will go one of two ways. We will be equally outraged, or we will be filled with the uncomfortable realization that our values differ from one another’s. What hasn’t been as popular in elections past, however, is to take it a step further by constructing a story from that information, and making unconscious judgments about the other person from those viewpoints.

However, because our elections are polarized, it’s not about just your opinion anymore—now I don’t like you as a person. According to this report, 72% of employed adults who said businesses and employers should implement policies for a civil workplace, only 19% say their employer has taken action to do so in advance of the election. Without addressing these issues, these unconscious judgments can seep into our decision-making. That’s when political discourse can’t be ignored.

“If leaders don’t navigate interpersonal conflicts tactfully, it could hinder talent retention…When employees don’t see their leaders as effective with interpersonal skills, they are 3.5 times more likely to want to leave the company within the year.” – SHRM

Election season is the perfect opportunity to provide these critical skills on how to navigate different belief systems and viewpoints. Not to come to an agreement on current issues, but to learn how to respond to each other with curiosity and understanding under high stake moments.

One way to teach these skills is by providing educational materials on models of how we think, come to conclusions, and make decisions. What makes us believe in what we do? Are we victim to taking shortcuts and attacking before we consider? We can address political discourse by teaching about concepts on how we think, without addressing the belief itself, which is safer territory. When we understand one another’s thought process, we can reach a sense of common ground, which fosters respectful communication.

How We Make Decisions

Have you ever believed something and found out you were wrong? You’ve found the data to back it up and done what you thought was your due diligence, but come to find out, you only considered certain opinions or evidence when coming to your conclusion?

National campaigns are effective because they tell a story backed by strong, convincing data. We rarely consider the source or the opposing view, but we know what side we’re on, right? Do we really need to? In forming strong opinions, organizational psychologist and Harvard Professor, Chris Argyris, says it’s necessary to consider lots of opposing data when forming strong opinions. You can find data to support just about any viewpoint, which is why it’s important to consider data from both sides to come to a sound conclusion. How often do we apply that tactic when talking politics? Almost never.

In the 1990s, Chris Argyris and Peter Senge referenced in their book, The Fifth Discipline, the Ladder of Inference, referred to as “a common mental pathway of increasing abstraction, often leading to misguided beliefs”. Ever heard the phrase jumping to conclusions? That’s the ladder of inference. This model analyzes your reasoning and can teach your leaders self-awareness of personal tendencies when arguing about high stake issues.

In the workplace, it’s a great way to explore how we make decisions and the steps we take in the process to arrive at the perception of our current reality. These steps we take, or beliefs we solidify, we then use to influence the action we take. Like moving up a ladder, we build on our beliefs until we are ready to take action.

“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.”- Harvard Business

Do you make assumptions? Only look at half the data? Do you skip steps on the ladder because of your bias? This is how we form strong opinions. Especially in the heat of the moment, we have all ‘jumped to conclusions’ at some point or another. These beliefs affect what action we take, and it happens in less than a millisecond.

Argyris says we analyze data, make assumptions, construct narratives, and use them as a basis for our actions. It goes like this:

• • We make an observation

• • Pick out selective details based on that observation

• • Create a story around those details (with supporting data)

• • Come up with our own conclusions based on those beliefs

• • Take action based on those beliefs

How this might play out destructively in the workplace:

A coworker has an American flag on their desk. You’ve never particularly liked this person. He also has a bumper sticker advocating for a candidate you don’t like on the back of his car. You determine, if that’s what he believes, he isn’t fit to be a manager. You decide you don’t want to work with this person because you don’t trust his judgment and you start to exclude him from meetings he would normally attend.

Unless you are aware of how this decision was made, you fall into a trap, shooting right up the ladder without a second thought (no pun intended). You make an assumption based on your observation (he’s got an unethical bumper sticker) and then apply your belief system (the issue he is supporting is unethical) to those observations, to then take action (he shouldn’t be in leadership).

We can also walk each other up and down the ladder by asking more questions about how they came to their conclusion when you know someone is making assumptions or jumping to conclusions with selective data. When we help each other see the bigger picture, we contribute to making clear and sound decisions at work.

“The challenge is that without testing those assumptions or critically looking at how they line up with available factual data or information, beliefs and actions can limit opportunities for growth because they are based more on uninformed emotion or perception rather than logic and fact.”