A colleague challenges your recommendation in a meeting. A trusted team member misses an important deadline. Someone you expected to hear from goes quiet when a decision needs to be made.
In moments like these, our minds work quickly to make sense of what happened.
They don’t trust my judgment.
I can’t count on that person.
They aren’t committed to the mission.
Sometimes our interpretation is right. Sometimes it isn’t. But once we settle on a story about what happened, that story can begin to shape everything that follows.
We respond differently. We ask different questions—or stop asking them altogether. We become more guarded, more directive, or less willing to extend trust. Our actions can even contribute to the outcome we were trying to avoid.
This happens to all of us, including experienced leaders who have spent years learning to read people and situations under pressure.
Experience helps us recognize patterns. It can also make a familiar interpretation feel more certain than the evidence warrants.
When an Assumption Becomes the Lens
Assumptions are not inherently a problem. Leaders make decisions with incomplete information every day. We draw on experience, recognize patterns, and act before every detail is available. In many situations, that ability is essential.
The challenge comes when we stop distinguishing what we know from what we believe to be true.
Consider a leader who assumes a team member’s lack of questions means they understand the direction. The leader moves on, expecting execution. The team member leaves with unresolved concerns, interprets the priorities differently, and delivers something that misses the mark.
The leader may conclude that the team member lacks initiative or attention to detail.
But perhaps the team member didn’t feel comfortable challenging the direction. Perhaps the priorities weren’t as clear as the leader thought. Or perhaps there was a legitimate disagreement that never surfaced.
Each explanation points toward a different response. If the leader settles too quickly on the first interpretation, the real issue may remain untouched.
The same dynamic can play out among senior executives, within operational teams, or between people who have worked together for years. A history of successful collaboration doesn’t eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding. In some cases, familiarity makes assumptions even easier to overlook.
We think we know how someone will respond. We believe we understand their intentions. We interpret their behavior through the lens of what happened last time.
And without realizing it, we may be responding to our interpretation of the situation rather than the situation itself.
The Difference Between What Happened and What It Means
One useful distinction is between an observable event and the meaning we assign to it.
A colleague questions a decision. That’s an event.
They don’t respect my authority. That’s an interpretation.
A team member misses a deadline. That’s an event.
They don’t take their responsibilities seriously. That’s an interpretation.
The interpretation may contain valuable information. It may even prove accurate. But it isn’t the same as the event itself.
When we treat our interpretation as established fact, we narrow the possibilities we can see. We may become defensive instead of curious, withdraw instead of engage, or act on an assumption that a straightforward conversation could have clarified.
This matters because leadership is rarely a solitary exercise. Our decisions affect other people, and our interpretations influence the relationships through which work gets done.
The ability to pause and consider another explanation isn’t indecision. It is a way to improve the quality of our judgment.
Making Room for Another Perspective
Questioning an assumption doesn’t mean replacing every negative interpretation with a positive one. That would be just as limiting. Some concerns are well-founded. Some patterns need to be addressed directly. Trust is built through behavior, not wishful thinking.
The goal is to remain open to what the evidence actually supports.
When a situation doesn’t unfold as expected, a few questions can help:
- What do I know, and what am I assuming? Separate what you observed from the meaning you’ve attached to it.
- What else could explain what happened? Consider another plausible interpretation, even if it isn’t your first instinct.
- What information am I missing? Is there a question you haven’t asked or a perspective you haven’t considered?
- What response would help me understand the situation more clearly? That might mean having a direct conversation, clarifying expectations, or giving someone an opportunity to explain their reasoning.
These questions don’t require a lengthy exercise every time something goes wrong. Sometimes the shift is as simple as replacing I know why they did that with I need to understand why they did that.
That small distinction can change the conversation that follows.
Instead of entering a discussion prepared to defend a conclusion, we enter ready to learn something. Instead of assuming intent, we ask about it. Instead of reacting to what we believe someone meant, we address what actually happened and what needs to happen next.
We can still hold people accountable. We can still make difficult decisions. We simply do so with a clearer understanding of the situation in front of us.
Awareness Creates Options
Under pressure, familiar interpretations can feel especially convincing. When time is short and consequences matter, we may have little patience for uncertainty. We want to understand what’s happening and decide what to do.
But speed and certainty aren’t always the same as sound judgment.
Sometimes the most valuable pause a leader takes is the moment between an event and the response. It’s the moment to notice the conclusion forming, consider whether it is supported, and choose how to proceed.
That pause doesn’t guarantee we’ll get it right. It gives us a better chance of seeing what we might otherwise miss.
Over time, this kind of awareness can change how we work with others. It can help us approach disagreements with more curiosity, recognize when past experiences are coloring present decisions, and address tension before an untested assumption becomes an entrenched belief.
It also asks something of us as leaders: the willingness to examine our own interpretations with the same rigor we bring to evaluating other people’s decisions.
We won’t always have the full picture. None of us does.
But we can remain curious about the parts we haven’t seen, willing to test what we think we know, and deliberate about the actions we take as a result.
The story you tell yourself about a situation may be accurate. Taking the time to understand and confirm what’s really happening can help you move forward with confidence and without regret.
Keep reading: The Value of Knowing Your Values in Decision Making