What is the Ladder of Inference?
The Ladder of Inference. It’s a phrase you might have heard. It’s also something we all climb every day. In a heartbeat, we’ve created a full story in our heads about what is really going on. We jump to conclusions about others’ intentions and motivations. We fill in the gaps with our own assumptions.
These moments, these split-second leaps up the Ladder of Inference, can often lead to a tricky situation. We start to believe our version of events is the absolute truth.
This is when conflicts start to brew. This can happen with clients, their whānau, or even our own teammates. We need a way to slow down and check our reasoning by understanding the Ladder of Inference.
The Problem with Jumping to Conclusions
Let’s be honest, it’s a completely human thing to do. Our brains are wired for speed. It’s a survival instinct, a relic from a time when a rustle in the bushes meant “run now, think later”. But our work is different. We can’t just run. When you’re working alongside clients and their families, or in a team with a bunch of great colleagues, assumptions can be incredibly harmful.
I remember a time, early on in my career, when a client was consistently late for appointments. Each time they were late, I took it personally. I built a narrative that they didn’t value our time together. My own beliefs were colouring my view of the situation. This led to tension and a strained relationship. The quick climb up my own Ladder of Inference was causing problems. As Marcel D’Eon (2022) notes, making inferences with limited data and then acting on those narratives is “supremely human.”
Supervision: Our Tool for Climbing Down the Ladder of Inference
Supervision isn’t just a formal catch-up. It’s a safe space for us to reflect. It is our chance to unpack our assumptions with another person. It’s a structured time to question our mental frameworks. I’ve found it to be a key time for me to reflect, ask, and tell. It is a vital process to mitigate the negative impacts of our own incomplete information. During supervision, we get to go back down the Ladder of Inference. We can look at our reasoning step by step. It’s a chance to challenge our narratives and see if there are other stories to tell. This process helps us rebuild trust and enhance our program’s resilience. This is how we can move from defensiveness to a place of open communication and learning. It is also a way for us to ensure we are practicing in a way that respects cultural values and ethical considerations, and to be mindful of our own implicit biases. It is the tool that helps us navigate the Ladder of Inference.
The Ladder of Inference Explained
The Ladder of Inference is a simple but profound model. It was developed by Chris Argyris and popularised by Peter Senge in his book *The Fifth Discipline* (1990). At its core, the model shows us how our beliefs are formed and how they influence our actions.
We all use the Ladder of Inference every day, often without even knowing we are doing it. It’s an unconscious process that helps us make sense of the world. The key is to make this process conscious. To climb down the Ladder of Inference, we need to understand its rungs:
- Rung 1: Data and Experience. This is the observable reality. It’s the words said, the tone of voice, the physical actions. It’s all the sensory information we could potentially perceive.
- Rung 2: Selected Data. From that massive pool of data, we select and filter what seems relevant to us. Our past experiences and biases guide this choice.
- Rung 3: Add Meaning. We then give meaning to the data we’ve selected. We fit it into our existing mental patterns and stories.
- Rung 4: Assumptions. We start to make assumptions to fill in the gaps. We invent a story that makes sense to us.
- Rung 5: Conclusions. We jump to a conclusion. We are now convinced our story is the truth.
- Rung 6: Beliefs. These conclusions become our firm beliefs. We now have a conviction about the person or situation.
- Rung 7: Action. Finally, we act based on our beliefs.
The Ladder of Inference is a continuous loop. Our actions then become part of the data we observe in the next situation, which reinforces our original beliefs.
Putting the Tool into Practice: A Case Study
I want to share a scenario that you’ll probably recognise in some form. It was a useful teaching tool in a workshop I attended. Let’s call the manager Jim and the worker Stan.
Jim is a manager at a health clinic. He needs to work with Stan, but he has no professional respect for him whatsoever. In fact, Jim thinks Stan is negligent and harmful to clients. For months, Jim has noticed that Stan isn’t doing adequate follow-up work with clients. Jim’s conclusion is that Stan is simply no good at his job. He believes he has good data to back this up. This is a clear example of the dangers of the Ladder of Inference.
Here’s how Jim climbed his ladder:
- Selected Data: Jim saw Stan not completing follow-up work. This is the observable fact.
- Added Meaning: Jim’s interpretation of this data was that Stan was being negligent. He’s fitting this behaviour into a pattern he’s seen before.
- Assumptions: Jim assumed Stan was deliberately choosing to be lazy or careless with his work. He’s filling in the gaps.
- Conclusions: Jim concluded that Stan is a terrible worker and a harmful person.
- Beliefs: This has now become a firm belief. Stan is not a good person. He is a wretch.
- Actions: Jim avoids Stan, his interactions are cold and unfriendly. He may even consider reporting him.
Now imagine we bring this to supervision. We would help Jim climb down the Ladder of Inference. What if we asked Jim to consider other possibilities? What if Stan has a personal issue? What if he is overloaded with work? What if there’s a problem with the new follow-up system that Jim isn’t aware of?
As Peter Howie describes it (2012), the Ladder of Inference is a way to appreciate perspectives that are “radically different from our own.” By climbing down the ladder, Jim could get back to the observable data.
He might discover Stan’s behaviour wasn’t about negligence at all. It could be something else entirely. Maybe Stan’s mother is very ill and he is distracted. Suddenly, Jim’s entire story unravels. He can now act from a place of compassion and understanding, not from a place of judgment.
Now it’s your turn to climbing down the ladder
Situation: Think of a situation where you felt conflict or discomfort with someone’s behavior (a client, a colleague, etc.).
1. Actions
- What did I do?: What were your specific actions in the conflict situation? (e.g., In Jim’s case, he avoided Stan and was cold to him.)
- Why did I do it?: What was your intention behind that action? (e.g., He believed Stan was harmful.)
2. Beliefs
- What belief drove my action?: What firm conviction inside you led to that action? (e.g., ‘Stan is an incompetent and harmful person.’)
3. Conclusions
- What conclusion did I reach?: What was the final conclusion that led to this belief? (e.g., ‘Stan is a terrible worker.’)
- What did I think was the evidence for this conclusion?: Why were you so sure this conclusion was right?
4. Assumptions
- What assumptions did I make?: What assumptions did you make to reach your conclusion? What did you “fill in the blanks” with that might not be true? (e.g., Jim assumed Stan was deliberately choosing to be lazy or careless.)
- What other possible assumptions could there be?: What other assumptions could explain the situation? (e.g., ‘Stan is going through a personal crisis,’ ‘He’s overloaded with work,’ ‘There’s a problem with the new follow-up system.’)
5. Added Meaning
- What meaning did I add to the selected data?: What meaning did you attach to the specific facts or behaviors you chose to focus on? (e.g., Jim gave the meaning of ‘negligence’ to the behavior of ‘incomplete work.’)
- Are there other meanings?: What other positive or neutral meanings could be attached to that same behavior? (e.g., ‘He’s distracted,’ ‘He has other urgent priorities.’)
6. Selected Data
- What specific data did I focus on?: Out of all the available data and experiences, what did you specifically notice and remember? (e.g., Jim only focused on ‘Stan not completing follow-up work.’)
- What data might I have ignored or overlooked?: Is there other information or behavior that you might have missed that could provide a broader perspective?
7. Data and Experience
- What is the actual, observable data?: Set aside your interpretations and emotions. What were the objective facts or words said in that situation? (e.g., ‘Stan did not complete the client follow-up work.’ This is the only objective fact.)
Conclusion: A Call to Reflect
The Ladder of Inference reminds us that our beliefs are not always reality. In fact, reality doesn’t shape our actions, our perception of reality does. This tool isn’t just about managing conflict. It’s about personal growth. It’s about being better social workers. It’s about creating a more compassionate world, one interaction at a time. So next time you feel a conflict brewing, take a deep breath. Ask yourself, “What is my story here?” Then, maybe it’s time to talk it out in supervision. This simple act of reflection can make all the difference.
D’Eon, M. (n.d.). The Ladder of Inference re-visited: “Don’t jump to confusions!” Canadian Medical Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.36834/CMEJ.76000
Fiester, A. (2024). The “Ladder of Inference” as a Conflict Management Tool: Working with the “Difficult” Patient or Family in Healthcare Ethics Consultations. HEC Forum, 36(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09476-w
Howie, P. (n.d.). Working with the Ladder of Inference.
Jamieson, D., Vogelsang, J., Townsend, M., Minahan, M., Vogel, J., Viets, A., Royal, C., & Valek, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook For Strategic HR: Best Practices In Organization Development From The OD Network. HarperCollins Leadership US.
Schlegel, D., & Parascando, J. (n.d.). What’s Happening in Your Head: Overcoming Our Assumptions to Work Better Together. MedEdPORTAL : The Journal of Teaching and Learning Resources, 16, 11034. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11034
About The Author
