THE DIMENSION
Checking another person’s concerns and constraints without assuming agreement.
The dimension in context
Checking another person’s concerns and constraints without assuming agreement.
You may discover information hidden by the first interpretation.
You may focus on your own position or have limited opportunity for dialogue.
An illustrative work situation
A participant sees a colleague’s resistance to a schedule change as unhelpful. The colleague is protecting a dependency the participant has not considered. Understanding that concern may change the available options even if the participant still favors the new schedule.
Perspective taking is not mind reading or automatic agreement. It involves forming a tentative account and checking it with the other person where appropriate. A self-report may capture willingness to consider perspectives without showing accuracy. The discussion should distinguish the other person’s stated concern from the participant’s interpretation.
A small practice to examine
Explain the other person’s position in terms they could reasonably recognize, then invite correction. Ask which consequence matters most and which parts of the proposal remain flexible. Use the corrected account to generate an option that addresses the relevant concern. Keep any remaining disagreement explicit.
Perspective taking can become speculation if it is not checked.
A question for closer study
How can a study compare a participant’s inferred perspective with the other person’s actual account?
Read the example alongside the research
The following editorial passages come from the linked framework chapters. They provide context for the original teaching example above; the example is fictional and is not a reported study finding.
An MCN exercise asks the participant to formulate one open question, summarize the answer, and invite correction. They then state their own concern separately. The review examines whether the exchange changed the understanding of the problem. Higher perspective-inquiry responses can become unhelpful if the person keeps speculating about hidden needs instead of asking directly. Lower responses may reflect a setting where dialogue is unavailable or inappropriate. The report should acknowledge those limits and keep the focus on a feasible, respectful information-gathering practice rather than a claim that the participant can accurately read another person’s mind.
Continue: Understanding a perspective requires checking it →
Galinsky and colleagues studied perspective taking and empathy in negotiation tasks, showing that related social processes can have different effects in particular settings. MCN does not reproduce those tasks or infer negotiation competence from self-report. Its perspective-inquiry domain asks about a simpler practice: seeking and checking information about another person’s concerns. The distinction between inquiry and imagination is important. Thinking about someone’s viewpoint can still produce an inaccurate story.
Continue: Understanding a perspective requires checking it →
Understanding a concern does not require agreeing with a proposed solution. A person may recognize that a colleague wants predictability while still disagreeing with a requested deadline. Clarifying the underlying concern can create options, but some interests remain incompatible. The report should avoid promising that enough empathy will resolve every dispute or suggesting that a person must accept harmful behavior to demonstrate understanding.
Continue: Understanding a perspective requires checking it →
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Galinsky et al. - Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent ↗Nembhard & Edmondson - Making it safe: Leader inclusiveness and professional status ↗