How this simple framework can save your construction projects from costly misunderstandings

How this simple framework can save your construction projects from costly misunderstandings

Ever had a construction project derailed by a simple misunderstanding?

You’re not alone. Miscommunication between agencies and contractors can turn a promising build into a costly nightmare—delays, budget overruns, and fractured relationships. But what if there was a way to prevent these issues before they escalate?

In this post, you’ll discover the Ladder of Inference, a powerful framework that can transform your team’s communication, resolve conflicts early, and keep your next infrastructure project on track. Let’s dive in.

Imagine Alex, the owner’s inspector, walking the site of a highway overpass project. He notices Jamie, the contractor’s superintendent, overseeing the installation of a different type of rebar than what’s specified in the approved plans.

This single observation — a change in rebar — sparks a mental chain reaction for both of them.

In reality, the rebar was changed due to a supply chain delay, and a substitution was submitted and approved by the resident engineer. But somewhere along the line, the approval didn’t make its way to Alex.

Enter the Ladder of Inference, developed by Chris Argyris, a Harvard scholar in human behavior. It explains how we all process data and make decisions — often in seconds — climbing from raw observations to actions through mental steps like assumptions, conclusions, and beliefs.

Let’s look at how Alex and Jamie each climb their own ladder from the same observation.

Alex’s Ladder Alex sees rebar that doesn’t match the spec. Based on past experiences with quality issues, he adds meaning (“this could be a spec violation”), assumes the contractor is cutting corners, draws the conclusion that Jamie is being careless or dishonest, and reinforces a belief that “contractors often try to get away with things.” His next step? He might confront Jamie or report it to the project manager.

Jamie’s Ladder Jamie’s ladder looks completely different. He knows the rebar substitution was approved and assumes the update was communicated to all stakeholders. He interprets Alex’s reaction as overblown or misinformed and assumes Alex doesn’t trust him. Now he’s frustrated — he did everything by the book.

They’re not climbing the same ladder at different speeds or heights. Instead, they’re building entirely separate mental scaffolds from the same foundation - the rebar data.

Alex’s ladder rises toward suspicion and conflict; Jamie’s supports practicality and trust in the process. This divergence, sparked by the same observation, is why misunderstandings happen.

Picture the Ladder of Inference as a mental scaffold: we all construct one, but the materials we use - our past experiences, values, and even our mood—determine its shape and direction.

The ladder itself has seven steps:

• Observe Data: The raw facts (e.g., the rebar material used is different).
• Select Data: What we focus on (e.g., the rebar change).
• Add Meaning: The interpretation we give it (e.g., “This is a quality issue”).
• Make Assumptions: Beliefs based on that meaning (e.g., “Jamie is cutting corners”).
• Draw Conclusions: Judgments we form (e.g., “Jamie is unreliable”).
• Form Beliefs: Broader views that shape future actions (e.g., “Contractors can’t be trusted”).
• Take Action: Decisions based on those beliefs (e.g., confronting Jamie or escalating the situation)

In construction, where stakes are high and details matter, these differences can escalate fast. A misinterpreted spec or unclear instruction can lead to rework, delays, and budget overruns, costing time, money, and trust.

So, how do you stop a misunderstanding before it spirals? Pause. Instead of reacting, take a moment to connect and clarify.

Here’s a practical approach for a similar situation you face in the future:

• Find Common Ground: Start with the shared goal. Alex could say, “Jamie, I know we both want this overpass to be safe and on time.”
• Agree on the Data: Confirm the facts. “We both see the rebar’s different. Can we start there?”
• Share or Ask:
  • Advocacy: Explain your ladder. Alex might say, “I saw the rebar change and worried about quality, based on a past project. What’s your take?”
  • Inquiry: Seek their perspective. Jamie could respond, “I switched it due to a shortage—it’s approved. Did you miss the update?"

This turns potential conflicts into collaboration. Why do we climb differently?

Our ladders reflect our unique wiring. Alex’s suspicion comes from a history of sloppy contractors, while Jamie’s confidence stems from trust in the approval process. Values, mood, and context all play a role.

At GLA, we know that technical expertise alone doesn’t deliver successful construction projects — relationships, trust, and proactive communication do. That’s why we advocate for construction partnering: a structured process that brings all parties to the table early and often, aligning around shared goals and surfacing potential misunderstandings before they escalate.

The Ladder of Inference is one of the many tools we introduce during partnering sessions to help teams build awareness of how assumptions form — and how to pause, clarify, and connect before reacting. When teams understand why they’re seeing the same situation differently, they become more collaborative, resilient, and efficient.

GLA helps project teams embed this kind of thinking into their daily interactions — turning reactive problem-solving into proactive relationship-building.

If you’re ready to elevate collaboration and reduce conflict on your next project, schedule a no-obligation meeting with us.

And don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for more tools, tips, and field-tested strategies to keep your projects on track and your teams aligned.