Beyond Beer Diplomacy: Climbing Down the Ladder of Inference
By Janice Molloy
The recent incident between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Massachusetts, police sergeant James Crowley has sparked a lively--and sometimes ugly--debate on the state of race relations in the U.S. Even President Obama entered the fray, making an ill-advised comment about the matter and then wisely backtracking. The case illustrates how easily a routine encounter can deteriorate when it involves two people who, because of history and experience, hold vastly different worldviews.
In case you missed it, on July 16, a passerby noticed two men struggling to enter a residence on a leafy street near Harvard University and called 911 to report a possible break-in. It turns out that the men--Professor Gates and his driver--were forcing open a jammed door in the esteemed scholar's home. When Sgt. Crowley arrived to investigate, he asked for Gates's identification to verify that he lived in the house; Gates in turn demanded Crowley's name and badge number. The situation escalated, and the officer ended up arresting Gates for disorderly conduct; the charges were later dropped.
The details of what ensued are still under debate; depending on which perspective you hear, it's either a matter of a white police officer racially profiling a black man, or a black man overreacting to a request by a white cop. What is clear is that each man reacted based on his own preconceived mental framework. In an excellent analysis, "What They Saw During the Gates Arrest," Associated Press columnist Jesse Washington summed up the situation: "Crowley asks Gates to prove he lives there. . . . Gates sees a racist. . . . Crowley sees someone who should be grateful, but instead is yelling and falsely accusing him of being a racist. . . . Neither man understood what the other one saw." And each man felt disrespected by the other.
The "ladder of inference," pioneered by business theorist Chris Argyris, illustrates how and why we leap to knee-jerk conclusions in our encounters with others--and gives guidance 
for climbing back down. In a nutshell, from our observations, we unconsciously and instantaneously select data, based on our cultural norms, background, and other factors. We then add meaning, make assumptions, and draw conclusions--often incomplete or erroneous--about why other people are behaving the way they are. Finally, we take action. From our interpretations of the data, our actions make perfect sense to us, but they may not correspond to the other person's "reality." When two emotionally charged perspectives conflict, the situation can easily spin out of control.
When Crowley and Gates meet over beer at the White House this evening, perhaps they will chat about the recent trades by the Red Sox or commiserate about the steamy weather we've had in Massachusetts this week. But I hope they'll also engage in a respectful exchange about the contradictory worldviews that led each to act the way he did. Maybe by calmly listening to one other and stating their own truths, they'll be able to change the filters with they approach the world. And maybe by witnessing this instance of "beer diplomacy," the rest of us will take lessons for looking before we leap up the ladder in our own encounters.
Janice Molloy is content director of Pegasus Communications and managing editor of The Systems Thinker.