On this page
After a project meeting. Tomasz writes the agreements as a sequence of next steps. Amira draws the same agreements as a dependency diagram.
— These are the agreements.
— No. This leaves out the dependencies.
After several emails, each begins to suspect that the other is changing the substance, even though much of the difference is only in how it is represented.
How does Empatyzer separate information format from content?
Empatyzer helps you see that a list and a diagram can describe the same thing, but they trigger different ways of thinking. This makes it easier to understand how not to confuse form with content.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Reveals differences between you in areas such as the way you organize information: list, image and structure, so that in a "List vs. diagram" situation you do not interpret the other party's behaviour solely through your own way of acting.
- How you think: Shows you how you organize information and come to conclusions, helping you understand your side of the List vs. Diagram difference.
- Tips: Helps you match the tone, level of directness, and expectation in a List vs. Diagram situation to that person, rather than using one message for everyone.
What really happened
Tomasz records the agreements as an ordered list. Amira represents them as a network of dependencies. Each looks at the other person’s version and sees the absence of what matters most to them. Tomasz cannot see the sequence of decisions in the diagram. Amira cannot see from the list what depends on what. Over time they start suspecting they disagree about the content as well. Only a side-by-side comparison reveals that a large part of the conflict came from two ways of representing the same information. The format had become evidence, for each person, of whether the other “understood the problem.”
What the research says
The same information presented in different forms can lead people to process it differently. Research comparing tables and graphs shows that the effectiveness of a representation depends on how well it fits the task a person needs to perform — cognitive fit (Vessey, 1991). This does not mean Tomasz is permanently “a list person” and Amira “a diagram person.” It means different representations foreground different aspects of the same information: sequence, relationships, space, numbers, or exceptions.
How to handle it
Instead of choosing one “correct” format, build a bridge between them. A decision list can sit next to a simple dependency diagram, with shared identifiers linking the same items. When a disagreement appears, ask: “Do we disagree about the content, or only about how we’ve represented it?” The general rule is: when two versions look different, do not immediately assume people agreed to different things; first translate one representation into the other.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Tomasz and Amira see that the disagreement may not be substantive, even when it is beginning to feel that way. The assessment can surface differences in how people structure information and how much explicit organization they need, while profile comparison lets Em propose a shared format that combines Tomasz’s sequence with Amira’s dependencies. Instead of another email exchange, the practical prompt may be: put the list next to the diagram and identify which elements genuinely differ. At team level, Empatyzer can reveal whether different ways of representing information create recurring friction between roles or departments. Micro-lessons teach people to catch this earlier, so a different way of writing down the same idea does not automatically become evidence that someone is thinking incorrectly.
Sources
- Iris Vessey (1991). Cognitive Fit: A Theory-Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences, 22(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00344.x 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00344.x
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.