Perspective Taking in Leadership: A Guide to Better Decisions

Motivational speakers can give a leadership team a memorable moment, but better decisions depend on what leaders do next: slow down, examine the situation from more than one viewpoint, and act on what they learn. Perspective taking in leadership is the deliberate effort to understand how a decision or challenge looks to the people affected by it. It does not mean agreeing with every view. It means gathering enough context to make a wiser choice.

Discuss a leadership program

What is perspective taking in leadership?

Perspective taking is a practical leadership skill: temporarily set aside your first interpretation and consider another person's information, pressures, needs, and likely experience. A manager may see a missed deadline as a commitment problem. The employee may be dealing with conflicting priorities, a blocked approval, or unclear ownership. Asking before judging helps reveal which explanation fits.

This is not mind-reading. A leader cannot know what a colleague thinks without asking. Nor is perspective taking the same as excusing every decision or avoiding accountability. It is a disciplined way to improve the facts available before deciding what to do.

Research and expert commentary describe perspective taking as a useful input to decision-making. Wharton’s discussion of the practice explains how it can help people make better decisions: read the Wharton article on perspective taking. For a leader, the value is concrete: fewer assumptions, better questions, and a clearer view of consequences.

Why does it matter when leaders make decisions?

Leaders rarely make decisions in a vacuum. A change to a schedule can affect customers, frontline employees, another department, and the people responsible for implementation. When the decision-maker hears only the most visible or senior voices, important constraints may remain hidden until they become delays, frustration, or rework.

• It exposes assumptions. Asking how others interpret a situation can show where a leader has treated an inference as a fact.
• It improves communication. People are more likely to explain a concern when they are asked with genuine curiosity and receive a respectful response.
• It makes trade-offs visible. Different roles may experience the same choice differently. Hearing those effects helps leaders name the trade-off rather than pretend none exists.
• It supports ownership. A decision informed by the people who must carry it out can clarify responsibilities and practical next steps.

Perspective taking does not guarantee agreement or a perfect outcome. It improves the quality of the conversation before action, and helps leaders explain why they chose a path even when not every preference can be met.

How can a leader practice it in a real conversation?

Use a short sequence that keeps curiosity connected to action. This works in a one-to-one conversation, a team meeting, or a review after a difficult decision.

1. State what you know. Separate observations from interpretation. “The handoff arrived after the agreed time” is an observation; “the team does not care” is an interpretation.
2. Ask for the other view. Try, “What am I missing about how this unfolded?” or “What pressures were you balancing?” Avoid a question that embeds blame.
3. Reflect back. Summarize the answer in neutral language and ask whether you understood it. This gives the speaker a chance to correct your interpretation.
4. Check impact. Ask who else is affected and what each option would make easier or harder.
5. Decide and explain. Make the call, state the reason, and name what evidence or concern shaped it. Perspective taking informs the decision; it does not remove the leader’s responsibility to decide.
6. Review the result. Agree on a point to revisit. If the decision created an unintended problem, adjust the system rather than dismissing the feedback.

A useful way to keep the conversation focused is to distinguish three kinds of information: what happened, what people believe it means, and what remains unknown. For example, a team may know that a project handoff missed its date. One person may interpret that as a lack of commitment; another may point to a late change in requirements. The leader can write the fact down, label the interpretations as hypotheses, and ask what evidence would clarify the cause. This prevents a confident story from becoming the only story.

It also helps to decide in advance how much input is needed. A low-risk, reversible choice may need only a quick check with the people doing the work. A decision with wide consequences may call for a fuller discussion, including those who will implement it and those who will experience its effects. The aim is not to collect every opinion. It is to hear the perspectives that could materially change the choice or its execution.

What does this look like in a team scenario?

Imagine a department that repeatedly misses a cross-team deadline. The leader’s first response is to tell the team to be more accountable. Before announcing a new rule, the leader asks the people on both sides to map the handoff.

The discussion shows that the receiving group gets incomplete requests and that the sending group does not know which details are essential. The delay is real, but the initial explanation—poor commitment—does not describe the whole problem. The leader can now set a shared definition of a complete request, identify who confirms it, and establish a brief check-in for exceptions. The team still owns its commitments, but the process no longer depends on guessing.

That distinction matters. Perspective taking is not a soft substitute for standards. It helps leaders distinguish a performance issue from an unclear process, a resource constraint, or a communication gap. Then they can respond to the actual barrier and keep expectations clear.

Consider the follow-through one week later. If the revised handoff works for routine requests but fails when urgent work appears, the leader should ask what changed in that situation rather than declare the process a success or failure. Perhaps the team needs a separate urgent path, or a named person to flag missing information. A small review turns the original conversation into learning that can be repeated. It also shows employees that their input had a practical effect, even if the leader did not adopt every suggestion.

Which questions help uncover another perspective?

Good questions are specific, open, and free of a preferred answer. The goal is to invite useful information, not to perform curiosity before restating a decision that has already been made.

• “What part of this situation looks different from where you sit?”
• “What information would change how you approach this?”
• “What is the hardest part of carrying out this plan?”
• “Who else will experience the impact, and what might we be overlooking?”
• “What would make this expectation clearer or more workable?”
• “What should we keep, change, or test next time?”

Listen without interrupting to correct the person’s experience. If you disagree, first check that you can describe their view accurately. Then share your own constraints, explain what is still uncertain, and work toward a next step.

Follow-up questions can make a broad answer more useful. If someone says a plan will be difficult, ask which step creates the most friction and what would make that step workable. If a concern is based on an earlier experience, ask what happened and whether the present situation differs. If a person is unsure, give them time to think or invite a short written response after the meeting. Silence does not always mean agreement; it can mean the question needs more room.

Leaders should also make the limits of the conversation explicit. Say whether you are gathering ideas, asking for a recommendation, consulting people before deciding, or communicating a decision that is already made. Clear expectations protect trust. They prevent people from mistaking a request for input as a promise that the group will choose the preferred option.

How can teams build the habit into meetings?

A team can make perspective taking routine without adding a long exercise to every meeting. Build a few reliable prompts into the moments when decisions are being shaped:

• Before a decision: Ask whose work or experience is missing from the discussion.
• When views differ: Ask each person to describe the concern they think the other side is raising, then invite corrections.
• Before implementation: Ask the people doing the work to identify the first likely obstacle.
• After a change: Review what happened against the intended result, including unexpected effects.

Leaders also set the tone through their response to inconvenient information. If speaking up leads to ridicule or punishment, people learn to stay quiet. A measured response—thank the person, ask for an example, and determine what should happen next—makes it safer to share facts without requiring the leader to accept every proposal.

For a hybrid or distributed group, structure matters even more. Share the decision question and relevant information before the meeting, then give people more than one way to contribute. A round-robin can prevent the fastest speaker from setting the frame. A shared document can help someone who needs time to organize a thought. After the discussion, summarize the decision, the reasons behind it, and the open questions in writing so people who were not present can understand the path taken.

Keep the routine light enough that a team will use it. A meeting agenda can mark a decision point and include three lines: affected groups, key assumptions, and implementation risk. The facilitator can invite one person to challenge the leading explanation and another to describe the work required after the meeting. Rotate those roles so the same colleague is not always asked to represent a whole department. A prompt is useful only when the team treats the answer as information, not as a debate performance.

For teams working through pressure or change, Aaron’s resilience speaking program connects practical strategies with the challenges organizations face. His work also includes mindset-focused speaking and leadership and team consulting.

How can leaders avoid common mistakes?

Perspective taking can lose its value when it becomes a script or a delay tactic. Watch for these common errors:

• Assuming you know how someone feels. Ask instead of assigning motives or emotions to a person.
• Listening only to confirm your position. Be open to information that could change your understanding, even if it does not change the final decision.
• Confusing understanding with agreement. You can accurately understand a concern and still choose a different course. Explain why.
• Inviting input after the decision is settled. Be clear about whether a conversation is for input, consultation, or communicating a decision.
• Ignoring power differences. A person may not feel comfortable challenging a manager in a group. Offer a private or written channel where appropriate.
• Stopping at discussion. Record the action, owner, and review point. Otherwise the conversation may not change the conditions that caused the problem.

Another mistake is asking one colleague to speak for an entire role, location, or community. No person can represent every experience within a group. Treat what they share as one valuable account, then look for other relevant voices and evidence. Avoid turning an individual into the designated “dissenter” or expecting them to explain an issue that is not part of their responsibility. The leader owns the work of gathering context.

There is also a difference between a perspective and a factual claim. A person’s account of how a decision affected them deserves careful listening. When a disagreement turns on what happened, however, the team may need to check records, timelines, or requirements before settling the facts. Respectful inquiry can include both: acknowledge the impact and verify the details. This makes room for candor without treating every interpretation as equally complete.

What is a simple way to compare decision approaches?

The right approach depends on urgency, risk, and who has relevant knowledge. Perspective taking does not mean every decision requires consensus. It means leaders deliberately choose how to gather and use viewpoints.

When choosing among these approaches, consider whether the choice is reversible, how much time remains, and who holds information the leader does not have. If a decision is difficult to reverse, a short pause to hear affected people may prevent expensive rework. If an immediate response is needed to protect people or keep essential work moving, the leader can act first and then explain what was known, what could not be checked in time, and when the impact will be reviewed.

A practical decision note can capture the thinking in a few sentences: the question, the viewpoints heard, the constraint that mattered most, the decision owner, and the date to revisit the outcome. This is not paperwork for its own sake. It helps a team remember why it chose a path, spot when circumstances have changed, and avoid repeating the same discussion without new information.

How can a leader tell whether the practice is helping?

Look for signs in the work, not just positive feedback about the meeting. Are assumptions being corrected earlier? Do people raise constraints before deadlines slip? Are decisions clearer about trade-offs, ownership, and follow-up? Does the team revisit an approach when evidence shows it is not working?

These observations are not a scorecard for personalities. Use them to improve the process. Ask a team after a consequential decision: What perspective changed our understanding? What did we fail to ask? What will we do differently next time? Answers should lead to an adjustment the team can see.

It can help to review a few decisions over time rather than judge the practice from a single meeting. Note whether the same kind of surprise keeps occurring, whether an important group is repeatedly absent from planning, or whether an action owner is clear after decisions. If the team improves one pattern—for example, surfacing dependencies before committing to a date—that is useful evidence that the conversation is shaping the work. Keep measures close to the decision process, and do not turn candid feedback into a ranking of who is “good” at perspective taking.

Ask for feedback in a way that leads to a concrete change. “Did this discussion feel good?” may invite a polite yes without revealing much. Instead ask: “Which question helped us see the issue differently?” “Was there a relevant viewpoint we did not hear?” and “What should we change in the next decision review?” Share what the team will do with the answers. If the response is that a concern was ignored, return to that concern and explain whether new information changes the plan or why the original decision still stands.

Frequently asked questions

Is perspective taking the same as empathy?

They are related but not identical. Perspective taking focuses on understanding how another person may interpret a situation. Empathy often includes responding to or sharing concern for that experience. Leaders can use both, but should ask rather than assume what another person feels.

Does perspective taking mean a leader must agree?

No. It means considering another viewpoint fairly before deciding. The leader remains responsible for the decision and should explain which factors shaped it.

Can a leader use perspective taking under time pressure?

Yes. Even one focused question—“What is the key impact I might be missing?”—can surface a critical constraint. When there is no time for discussion, explain the decision and create a prompt review to learn from its effects.

How can a team practice without making meetings longer?

Attach one perspective check to an existing decision point. Ask who is affected, what assumption needs testing, or what obstacle may arise during implementation. Keep the question brief and record the resulting action.

Connect with Aaron about your team’s goals

Make perspective part of the decision

Perspective taking is most useful when it changes how leaders gather information, communicate expectations, and review outcomes. Practice it with one decision this week: separate facts from assumptions, ask what you may be missing, and explain how the answer informs the next step. That small discipline can help a team face pressure with greater clarity and shared ownership.