A colleague’s silence can be interpreted as agreement, discomfort, reflection or refusal. A manager who chooses an explanation too quickly may respond to a story rather than the person’s actual position.
Perspective-taking broadens the questions leaders ask. It works best when followed by direct inquiry and evidence.
Treat your interpretation as a hypothesis
Consider the other person’s responsibilities, information, constraints and consequences.
Ask what they might be trying to protect and what they may know that you do not. These questions can reveal alternative explanations without requiring agreement.
Do not assume that imagining another person’s experience gives access to their thoughts. Check the account with them where feasible.
Empathy supports understanding; it does not establish that a factual claim is correct.
Examine the operating context
Different functions often experience the same decision differently.
A hypothetical sales team sees a customer opportunity, while operations sees an unstable configuration and a capacity commitment. Each may interpret the other’s concern as obstruction or irresponsibility.
Map the objectives and risks each side carries. Shared facts about the system can reduce the tendency to attribute every disagreement to personality.
Leadership may need to change targets or decision rights, as well as improve the conversation.
Ask about individual preferences
Culture, professional background, language and experience can influence communication. They do not determine an individual’s behavior.
Use cultural frameworks as prompts for questions, not instructions for classifying people by nationality or group.
Ask how the person prefers to receive feedback, what the silence means in this discussion or how they understand the decision process.
Avoid treating one person’s behavior as evidence about an entire culture.
Make participation accessible
Language fluency, meeting format and organizational status affect who can contribute.
Provide clear material in advance, avoid unnecessary idiom and allow time for clarification. Written input can complement discussion where useful.
Check understanding without testing people publicly. Ask participants to explain the agreed action and invite correction of your summary.
Remote and hybrid work add context gaps. A short message may carry less meaning than its recipient assumes, especially when tone and timing are unclear.
Preserve ethical boundaries
Understanding a person’s context does not require accepting discriminatory conduct, threats or dishonesty.
Address the behavior and relevant standards. Avoid using culture as an excuse for harm or as a basis for prejudgment.
Where serious allegations arise, use a fair and appropriate process. An informal exchange of perspectives cannot settle facts that require investigation.
The leader can remain curious about context while acting clearly on responsibilities.
Turn understanding into coordination
After hearing the perspectives, identify what changes: a decision rule, communication practice, resource allocation or working agreement.
Make remaining differences explicit. Some conflicts require an accountable decision rather than further mutual explanation.
Review whether the change helps the work. A conversation can feel constructive without resolving the underlying dependency.
Perspective-taking improves leadership when it replaces assumption with inquiry and leads to more informed action. It helps people understand one another while retaining clear standards for evidence, responsibility and conduct.