The Most Dangerous Assumption in Any Dispute

Most people enter a dispute believing they know the other side's objective.

They assume an investigator wants to uncover the truth. They assume an administrator wants to reach the fairest decision. They assume opposing counsel wants to evaluate the evidence objectively. They assume a committee wants to hear both sides with an open mind.

Sometimes those assumptions are correct.

Often, they are not.

One of the most common—and costly—mistakes people make is assuming that everyone involved is trying to solve the same problem. In reality, different participants are often pursuing entirely different objectives. If you misunderstand what problem someone is actually trying to solve, you will likely communicate in ways that are logical to you but ineffective for them.

This misunderstanding lies at the heart of countless failed appeals, unsuccessful grievance proceedings, workplace investigations, and lawsuits.

Imagine a student accused of academic misconduct. The student believes the issue is simple: "I need to prove I didn't cheat." The disciplinary committee, however, may be asking a different question: "Can we confidently defend our decision if it is later challenged?" Those are not identical inquiries. Evidence that persuades one audience may do little to answer the concerns of the other.

The same dynamic appears in employment disputes. An employee may spend hours explaining why a supervisor treated them unfairly. Human resources, however, may be focused primarily on whether the organization complied with its own policies and whether it faces legal exposure. Fairness may matter, but institutional risk often occupies the center of the analysis.

Judges and juries operate under different constraints as well. A litigant may believe the central question is whether something actually happened. A court, however, must determine whether admissible evidence satisfies the applicable burden of proof under governing law. Those are fundamentally different questions. A person can be factually correct yet still lose because the available evidence is insufficient, inadmissible, or legally irrelevant.

This does not mean decision-makers are dishonest or indifferent to the truth. It means they operate within institutional frameworks that shape what they consider most important. Every organization has priorities, incentives, and limitations that influence how disputes are evaluated. Ignoring those realities rarely changes them.

The most effective advocates recognize this distinction. Before presenting their case, they ask a different question: "What problem is this decision-maker trying to solve?"

The answer often changes everything.

If an investigator is trying to determine credibility, simply repeating the same denial may accomplish little. Corroborating documents, contemporaneous records, and independent witnesses may matter far more.

If a committee is concerned about consistency, demonstrating how similar cases were treated may be more persuasive than emphasizing the emotional impact of the decision.

If a judge is focused on a legal standard, lengthy discussions of perceived unfairness may carry little weight unless they connect directly to the governing law.

Persuasion begins when you stop answering the question you wish had been asked and start answering the question the decision-maker is actually trying to resolve.

This principle also explains why intelligent people sometimes become frustrated during disputes. They believe they have presented overwhelming evidence, yet the decision-maker remains unconvinced. The problem is not always the quality of the evidence. Sometimes the evidence simply does not address the issue that the audience considers most important.

This insight requires humility. It forces us to recognize that our understanding of a dispute may not be the only—or even the most influential—way of viewing it. Effective advocacy requires stepping outside our own perspective and understanding how others define the problem before attempting to persuade them of the solution.

None of this means you should compromise your principles or abandon truthful arguments. It means you should present those arguments in a way that addresses the concerns of the people who must ultimately decide the matter.

The strongest advocates do not merely prove facts. They understand priorities. They recognize incentives. They anticipate concerns. They appreciate institutional realities without losing sight of the truth.

The most dangerous assumption in any dispute is believing that everyone is trying to answer the same question.

They rarely are.

The sooner you identify the question your audience is actually asking, the greater your chance of giving the answer that truly matters.