Fantasy Ladder

The ability to modify how you map the world is your key to survival.

Imagine you're in the Australian outback with a temperature hovering around 40°C. All you see is a blistering landscape that seems barren and devoid of food or drink. To the untrained eye it looks like a desert, but to the Aborigine it's a rich opportunity to harvest food and water: the seeds from sparse clumps of Wollybutt grass make flour; the seeds from the acacia tree are like peas; and the bottle-shaped yellow blossoms from the Corkwood tree can be beaten against the palm to produce sweet nectar that has a smoked honey flavor. Remapping your world is a key to survival.

The ability to rebuild your map is an essential characteristic of leaders and innovators. They are able to take a distorted view of the world and from this create new products and ideas around the world. Masaru Ibuka, Sony's Honorary Chairman conceived of the notion of the Walkman, a product that has gone on to sell millions around the world; and Trevor Bayliss dreamed up the idea of the clockwork radio. Richard Branson continues to break existing map structures, always stretching the portfolio one step further. We have yet to see if Virgin Galactic, his hotels in space, will succeed, but his visionary ability shows an extraordinary ability to remap his map of the journey.

Fantasy Ladder

Our mental maps are not rigid but this means they can become distorted over time and what appears to be the truth or a correct decision one day might appear totally different on another day. This distortion can be almost imperceptible and is driven by many factors, including personal values, political forces, fears or simple forgetfulness. The shift from hard, objective data to subjective fiction can quite rapidly take you through a number of stages (see Figure 35), based on the Ladder of Inference developed by Chris Argyris:

1. I see something happen that is quite factual.

2. I select details from what I observe, based on my beliefs and values.

3. I use these details and add my personal meanings, based on personal experiences.

4. This view shifts from interpretation to hard fact.

5. I take actions and change my behaviour, based on these new beliefs.

At the bottom of the ladder is a fact or event that happens to you. You select elements of the event and turn it into faction, something that is basically true but is influenced and modified by our map of the world. The faction turns into fiction, as the biased story is translated into a distorted view of what happened -- although some element of the fact can be found, you would have to dig quite deep to uncover the real events. Finally, the fiction turns into fantasy as the story takes on mythical status. This may be triggered by the original fact, but has nothing to do with it in terms of either content or detail.

This happens all the time in the political arena. A new and reputable politician gets elected to Parliament. They build a reputation as a good politician and an honest broker. But in a television interview they make a comment that seems to contradict statements made in an earlier campaign. People start to mistrust the politician and this links readily with the stereotypical view of politicians who make promises and break them. The politician is branded a liar and manipulator and further tales get them deselected at the earliest opportunity. What was a slight shift in political position becomes a radical turn around in political posture.

The climb up the fantasy ladder doesn't have to involve other people. This is something that you do individually, and often in seconds. Think about the last time you made a presentation to an audience. All's going well until you realize that the man at the end of the third row is not paying attention. The closer you look you realize that he is actually typing away on his laptop. Immediately, the insecurity driver kicks in, and you think that your presentation is failing. You start to climb up to the faction level as you conclude that other people are probably not interested either and are just looking interested to be polite. Then you reach the fiction stage where you believe that your presentational style is all wrong. You're not clever enough, you look like a mess and don't have any funny stories to draw upon like the really good presenters. By the end, you've made a headlong jump into fantasy and decided that you'll never do any more of this type of presentation -- you're not up to it and it's far better coming from someone who knows what they are doing.

This leap up the ladder is a common event and one that people beat themselves up over on a daily basis. If not during a presentation then it might be how you react in a team meeting, at a family gathering, or at college. The point is that we often climb the ladder without any real need to. We let the insecurity and restricted variety drivers build conclusions about us and others that are unclear or totally false. In the case of the presentation, it might have been that the man at the end of the row was really enthused about your presentation and wanted to capture all the elements that weren't in the overheads. Unless you take time to climb down the ladder and operate at fact level, you'll be forever operating in fantasy land.  

Personal fantasy ladder

The climb up the fantasy ladder doesn't have to involve other people. This is something that you do individually, and often in seconds. Think about the last time you made a presentation to an audience. All's going well until you realize that the man at the end of the third row is not paying attention. The closer you look you realize that he is actually typing away on his laptop. Immediately, the insecurity driver kicks in, and you think that your presentation is failing. You start to climb up to the faction level as you conclude that other people are probably not interested either and are just looking interested to be polite. Then you reach the fiction stage where you believe that your presentational style is all wrong. You're not clever enough, you look like a mess and don't have any funny stories to draw upon like the really good presenters. By the end, you've made a headlong jump into fantasy and decided that you'll never do any more of this type of presentation -- you're not up to it and it's far better coming from someone who knows what they are doing.

This leap up the ladder is a common event and one that people beat themselves up over on a daily basis. If not during a presentation then it might be how you react in a team meeting, at a family gathering, or at college. The point is that we often climb the ladder without any real need to. We let the insecurity and restricted variety drivers build conclusions about us and others that are unclear or totally false. In the case of the presentation, it might have been that the man at the end of the row was really enthused about your presentation and wanted to capture all the elements that weren't in the overheads. Unless you take time to climb down the ladder and operate at fact level, you'll be forever operating in fantasy land.

Shared fantasy ladder

Imagine you've had an argument with someone at work. Although it's a silly spat that you manage to resolve, you can see how it starts to make its way up the fantasy ladder. At the time both you and the other person might be able to describe what happened, and your descriptions would match closely enough. But just moments after it happens, you call a close colleague and describe the argument to them. You put small, personal spins on the situation so, at the second level, your description is still true, but your personal embellishments have turned it into faction. Your friend will meet others at work and tell them what happened, but this time they put their own spin on the situation. At this point the story takes a leap from faction to fiction. The event being described, though recognizable, is now different. Your friend wants to enhance your position and the story is increasingly focused on what you did right and what the other person did wrong. So much of the truth has been replaced with distorted information. And finally, the word gets spread about what happened and the tale takes on enormous changes more and more personal views are added in. The original event becomes a fantasy that has very little to do with fact.

But remember, both sides of the story have climbed the fantasy ladder and we can see how a gap or canyon can emerge in the relationship.

Fantasy provides the potential for conflict. The escalation from fact to fantasy leads to conflict at home, at work, on the sports field, and even to wars between nations. Take any major conflict and it's generally possible to trace back each side's story to a root point or incident. The irony is that once the fantasy is built on each side, the conflict is no longer about anything substantial -- it's simply about egos, beliefs, political position and power.

Some fissures are only small and the fantasy gap can be resolved by climbing down the ladder and re-agreeing the real facts. However, a fissure can split so far that the conflict starts to cause a real problem. And, once the fantasy story is public and in place, it can be hard for both sides to climb down the ladder to talk about the real rather than the fictitious issue.

Fantasy forces

This type of reframing can be seen in the home as we make distinctions between right and wrong based on our relationships with other family members. When I was a teenager and lived with my parents, the house we lived in wasn't a big place and, as the lounge was small, we didn't have a lot of space. When the dinner table was set up, it used to be quite difficult to find a free space to put your tea cup or soft drink. One day I walked into the lounge and didn't see the coffee cup that my mother had put down on the floor next to her chair. Within a second the coffee was all over the carpet and we were rushing around trying to get a cloth to mop it up before the coffee stained. At the time my dad chewed me out for being careless and not looking where I was going. Fair enough, I thought, he was right, it was my fault. The next day, as I crashed out to watch the wrestling on a Saturday afternoon, I put the cup on the floor next to my chair. In walked my mother who promptly sent the cup flying, and yet again we scrabbled to find a cloth to mop the tea up before it stained the carpet. Now dad chewed me out for putting the cup on the floor. I couldn't believe it! I tried to tell him how unfair he was being, but to no avail, he was in full flow and nothing was going to stop him.

I believe that my dad's natural intuition to defend mum led him to form decisions in each instance as to what had happened and who was to blame. In both cases he passionately believed that he was right. This is because he was influenced by the legacy of his relationships with us all (mine was that I was a slob and left rubbish all over the place) and his personal values and beliefs. These were driven by his love of my mother and a natural desire to support her. She had the job of running the household and none of us were great at helping her. So although the facts were broadly the same, he formed a rapid interpretation based on what he believed and what had happened in the past.

The question is, to what extent do you do the same? If you have a problem with a team member or co-worker, do you try to stay at the fact level and deal with the problem based upon what happens? Or do you build on your past relationship with your colleague and race up the ladder , and end up trying to resolve a fantasy problem?

From fantasy to fact

Ultimately, the only way down conflict canyon is through the use of productive conversations. These are conversations that help tackle underlying issues that sit beneath the words we use when talking. The first point is to agree that there is a difference of viewpoint. Once this is agreed, we have a safe way to stop the fissure in its tracks and we can ask several questions:

  These questions are used to specifically climb down the ladder and drop below fact level, to understand the person, more than just the situation.

  As you try to understand the deeper issues, there are two areas to consider:

In the majority of cases, the climb up the fantasy ladder is driven by deep-rooted personal values and beliefs rather than the specifics of the circumstances. The football manager who constantly argues with one of the star players is actually fighting a beliefs battle, where he believes that the manager has to operate a firm command and control regime, whereas the footballer believes that the effective sportsperson has to be free in order to release their talent. Only when the legacy and values are understood can you stand any chance of moving down the fantasy ladder to deal with the fact of the problem.

Admittedly, this type of productive conversation is rarely easy. Even the simplest question about how someone else views their world can feel like a challenge to their beliefs. If you really want to step down and operate at fact level, one solid rule is to operate from a position of disclosure first, inquiry second and advocacy third. In this way, once you display that you're prepared to share your framework, then understand another person's world view, it becomes easier to understand how their frame might not fit with the leadership frame you're trying to install.  

Professional map-makers

The problem with the fantasy ladder is that maps can be based on 'facts' which are actually fantasy. Every day tabloid myths are perpetuated because people believe what they read. On a grander scale a whole nation can turn fact into fantasy. A child reared in an environment where, for example, racial discrimination is accepted, or even favoured, might know deep down that lies and falsehoods have been spun in order to ensure a certain form of political power is maintained. And the titans of corporate concerns, media moguls and political parties employ large teams just to manage people's maps. If you take one step back and map your map of the world, how much of it is built on fact, and how much is based on fantasy? And how do you know the difference between the two?

What filters and tests can you apply to ensure you're not being fed information that's clouded with fictional additions by those who have played with the ideas. For example, how do you know if the latest story from your chairperson is fact, faction, fiction or fantasy? To what extent are you confident that the feedback you received at your last appraisal wasn't clouded?

  It's the transfer of one person's fantasy to another's fact that leads to grapevine growth in organizations. Person A is at a meeting where the director briefs the team about a new pay scheme that will be due next year. But they push it up the ladder and believe that the new pay scheme is actually designed to cut the overall pay budget. Person A tells B, B turns it into a belief that the pay budget must be cut because the business is in trouble, and in effect, they now believe that the company has major financial problems and might be looking to make people redundant. B tells C this story and C infers a new fantasy that job cuts are imminent. All these people are receiving other people's fantasies and have little appreciation of the real facts of the matter.

Think about the headings below. Consider how you would describe your beliefs on each one:  

Once you've considered your views on each of these topics, ask yourself:

If you can answer yes to these questions, your map is no doubt pristine, accurate and unbounded -- congratulations! But be careful. You may have developed the ability to see the world as it is and acquire rich variety in the way you view life, but I'm sure that most racist and bigoted political parties have such a view. It's far better to believe that your view is biased and corrupted, then you'll always seek to test and validate your map of the world, rather than sitting back on the assumption that you've got it right.

Throughout the process of mapping your map you should create opportunities wherever you can to enrich your variety, and avoid accepting other people's views of the world. If you choose not to review your map and to stick with your current version, you've locked yourself into a kind of self-imprisonment. This can only ever limit your opportunity to lead yourself and others in a more effective way. Your map has to be flexible.

If you see beauty in art and I see paint then I lose. If you see the sunrise in the morning and I hear the dogs barking, then I lose. If you see market opportunities and I see market problems, then I lose. We all have the freedom to see the world as we wish to see it or as others see it. The important thing is to choose the choice and not fritter it away through apprehension or apathy.

Return to Toolkit page

Return to Home page

(c) Mick Cope