On this page
Recommendation presentation. Zofia shows a slide recommending option B. Instead of accepting the conclusion, Tomasz starts asking how the numbers were calculated.
— I recommend option B. It will improve the result fastest.
— What assumptions did you use?
— What about seasonality? And churn after the first month?
Zofia starts to feel challenged. Tomasz is using questions to decide whether he can trust the recommendation.
How does Empatyzer account for different standards of evidence?
Empatyzer helps you see that one person wants a decision, the other wants evidence first. It also helps see how different standards of evidence create unnecessary conflict.
Features that can help:
- You vs. the team: Shows how your profile compares to the team in areas such as evidentiary standards, data, and decision-making pace, which helps set the scene for "Where did this conclusion come from?" in the broader context of the group.
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in areas such as evidentiary standards, data, and decision-making pace, which helps you understand why the situation of "Where does this conclusion come from?" may mean different things to each of you.
- Tips: Offer guidance on how to talk to a specific person in a "Where does this conclusion come from?" situation, in order to maintain the meaning of the message and reduce the risk of unnecessary defense or misunderstanding.
What really happened
Zofia presents a recommendation and expects the conversation to move toward a decision. Tomasz starts probing assumptions, seasonality, and data. For him, questions are a route to trust: if the answers hold up, he can support the conclusion with confidence. Zofia hears the same sequence as a test of her competence. The more scrutinized she feels, the easier it is to become defensive. Tomasz may then read that defensiveness as yet another reason to scrutinize. A disagreement about the quality of an argument begins to acquire a personal meaning.
What the research says
Team research distinguishes conflict about the task from conflict about people and relationships. Task conflict can be useful, but it can readily spill into relationship conflict, especially when people do not trust one another or attribute hostile intentions to questions (Simons & Peterson, 2000; Peterson & Behfar, 2003). That maps well onto this scene: “What assumptions did you use?” is, on its face, a question about the model. Zofia may nevertheless hear, “I don’t believe you know what you’re doing.” The problem is therefore not only the question itself, but the meaning assigned to it.
How to handle it
Tomasz can state the purpose before launching into a series of questions: “I want to be able to support this option, so I’m going to test three assumptions.” Zofia can separate herself from the model: “Are you challenging me, or the assumption?” The team can also create an explicit stage in important recommendations for stress-testing the argument, without treating that process as disloyalty. The general rule is: a question can be an attack, but it can also be a way of building trust; state why you are asking before the other person has to invent the reason.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Zofia and Tomasz see that questions do not carry one universal meaning. The assessment and profile comparison may show that Tomasz builds confidence by testing assumptions and precision, while Zofia’s fast, outcome-focused style makes a stream of questions easier to experience as decision blocking or a competence test. Em can prepare Tomasz to state his intent before probing — “I want to support this option, so I’m going to check three assumptions” — and prompt Zofia to separate a question about the model from a question about her ability. If the same tension repeats across the team, group-level insights can support a shared stage for testing arguments. Micro-lessons reinforce the idea that a well-framed question can be a way of building trust, not evidence that trust is missing.
Sources
- Tony L. Simons; Randall S. Peterson (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
- Randall S. Peterson; Kristin Jackson Behfar (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1-2), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00090-6
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.