In our interactions with others we can often assume that we are all having the same experience, viewing the situation similarly and extracting the same data. The reality is we are having entirely different experiences, picking up on very different things, seeing, and hearing, with different (literally) eyes and ears.
If we imagine this in a team setting, in any meeting each member of that team is having their own unique experience. It will be shaped by mind-set, mood, worldview, beliefs, previous experiences, upbringing, personality preference, hierarchical position, etc., etc. There are so many factors that shape and shade our experience.
When people leave the meeting their individual interpretation and recollection of key moments may vary vastly from colleague to colleague and with the distance of time the variations may get greater still. Each has their own truth, and it is evolving.
At a practical level this becomes a problem when actions and particular approaches may have been agreed and people go off to do their part. Curiously, down the line, we discover that part is inconsistent/a poor fit with other parts of the agreed process.
At a more dangerous emotional level it can cause difficulties in working together in the future if one person experienced discomfort, friction or irritation in the exchange and of which others are unaware or didn’t feel. This becomes our stowed baggage which we haul out and cart to the next interaction. The chances of it being productive are diminished.
The antidote is found in ensuring we share our experience of any significant interaction with others and ask them to do the same so misalignment and misunderstanding are brought into the open. These conversations may be uncomfortable initially but they generate greater understanding, build relationship, and help clear what Gervase Bushe calls ‘interpersonal mush.’ This clearing allows future interactions to flow and trust and collaboration to grow.
Not convinced? I think one of the most useful frameworks in this space is Chris Argyris’ ‘Ladder of Inference.’ Try working through that with a colleague who attended the same meeting and you may be surprised at the different versions of the same encounter that emerge.