Two Good Rules
⏲ 3-minute read
Two good rules for interaction are:
- Don’t be upset with someone unless they know it.
- Don’t talk behind someone's back unless you've talked to their face.
Basically, bringing up issues directly.
Safety
I used to think there were a few caveats, like power dynamics (i.e. - boss or manager), or waiting for the "right time" to broach a subject.
And while there are certainly some considerations for the format and venue of a conversation, a conversation really only needs the two conditions for safety: mutual respect, and mutual purpose. If you have those, you're good to proceed!
Of course, the relationship has to be important enough to want to solve the issue, but that's what makes these rules helpful: they're self-correcting. When we take issue with someone else's behavior, it's at least a little bit important. If it wasn't, we wouldn't feel the urge to talk about it!
So the guidance on talking about an issue goes something like this1:
| Important | Not Important | |
|---|---|---|
| Directly | 1 | X |
| Behind Their Back | 2 | X |
The Issue With "Behind Their Back"
Most of the time, when you're talking to someone about a problem you have with another person, their response is going to be more questions (e.g. - "Did you talk to that person? What did they say?"2). They want the whole story3.
It's really nice to have those answers, and it makes the conversation you're having more productive and complete (operating with full context).
It also means you tried to solve the problem yourself before asking for help, which signals good intentions to others and that you're not a bad actor (operating in good faith).
In this way, these two rules ease the should-I-talk-about-this-right-now decision-making and allow for confident, self-protecting conflict navigation. It's self-protecting because you are always operating with full context and good faith.
Miscommunication
This direct communication style is so effective because normal communication is so messy. There are so many ways things get misinterpreted the first time around. The direct-first approach sidesteps misunderstandings by granting conversations a second chance.
For example, someone:
- Could be completely caught off guard because that's not what they meant.
- Doesn't even remember saying that.
- Didn't have enough coffee.
- Misheard the question and answered something else entirely.
- Thought it was a rhetorical question, so they didn't actually prepare an answer.
- Were busy overthinking what to say next and missed the actual conversation.
- Panicked and said the first thing that came to mind, which made no sense.
- Assumed sarcasm when there was none.
- Didn’t realize they were on mute.
- Forgot they were supposed to know the answer.
- Answered based on a completely different context.
- Got sidetracked by their own train of thought.
- Thought it was a joke and went along with it.
- Realized halfway through the sentence that it wasn’t going to land, but committed anyway.
- Misinterpreted the vibe of the room and went too serious/funny.
- Thought they were being clever, but it came out awkward.
- Overestimated how much everyone else understood the reference.
- Answered before thinking it through because silence felt awkward.
So during your next conflict ask yourself: do they know you're upset, and did you talk to them about it?
Sometimes if you sit on something that's not important for long enough, it eventually becomes important (and then you can talk about it)! But otherwise, it's just venting or unproductive gossip.↩
Even if they don't ask that to you directly, it's still probably their first thought.↩
Probably. At least, the way I see it the more irrational or unusual the story, the more we crave additional context.↩