The Interpretation Gap
by Dr Rona Mackenzie, Founder
The Interpretation Gap
Most dysfunction in teams doesn't begin with conflict. It begins much earlier, in interpretation.
I was reminded of this recently in a conversation with a colleague. My listening and speaking style is what Co-Valence describes as inferential. His is direct, he says what he means. I instinctively listen for what might sit around the words - tone, implication, what may be suggested rather than explicitly stated.
Occasionally this produces a strange moment. He makes a perfectly straightforward comment, and I respond to what I believe he meant beneath it. He then looks back at me, completely puzzled.
"Where did that come from?"
Nothing dramatic has happened, but we have left the same sentence with entirely different meanings.
This happens far more often inside leadership teams than people realise. Some people communicate directly, where the words carry the meaning. Others interpret communication more contextually, where tone, history and implication shape what is heard.
Neither approach is wrong. Both are coherent ways of making sense of conversation. The difficulty begins when those differences remain invisible.
Under pressure, leaders often start attributing intent instead of examining interpretation. Someone appears to be over-reading. Someone else appears blunt or dismissive. The team begins to believe it has a personality problem.
Often it simply has an interpretation gap.
And when interpretation gaps go unseen, leadership judgement quietly begins to drift. Decisions get made about intent, capability, and trust that were never actually grounded in what was said.
I'm curious - what's your experience?
Do you tend to hear exactly what someone says, or what you think they might mean?