Through the pain, not around it

In a meeting, we agreed on solution A. Shortly afterwards, a colleague suggests in chat that we should continue with solution B.

My first thought is: Here we go again. I do not reply straight away. I am already playing the next conversation through in my head: she feels attacked, explains it all away as a misunderstanding, and we end up arguing about more than this one decision.

I do not yet know why she suggested solution B. New information may have come up since the meeting. Or she may have understood our agreement differently.

I know the urge to talk to someone else first or wait until the next meeting. It eases the tension for a moment. The longer I wait, the more likely I am to hear a message about our working relationship internal Reflacto blog post in her suggestion: she never stands by decisions we make together.

The uncertainty before the conversation

When I am still angry, I wait before replying. That helps me say more precisely what I want to discuss. At some point, though, I have to have the conversation.

Sometimes I look for a way around it: we speak only through tickets or ask a third person to make the next decision. The message in chat remains between us.

Her suggestion in chat leaves me unsure: Did she want to change our decision or add another thought? If I leave that question open, I may read a contradiction into an ordinary question at the next meeting.

That is why I say: “Through the pain, not around it.” The conversation itself is the pain I expect. I have to have it, even when I imagine how uncomfortable it might be. Only then will I find out what my colleague meant by her message. We may still disagree afterwards.

Naming the conflict

I try to start with what I observed and what it triggered in me. In the situation above, that could sound like this:

“In the meeting, we agreed on solution A. Afterwards, you suggested in chat that we continue with solution B. I was irritated because I did not know whether you wanted to change our decision. What was still open for you after the meeting?”

I also look at my part: Did I sum up the decision too quickly? Miss an objection? Was it even clear that the discussion was over?

Next time

After we have both said how we saw it, I want to know what applies to our work now. We need to be able to rely on what was decided in a meeting. Otherwise the same question comes up with the next decision.

For solutions A and B, I would clarify: Does our agreement from the meeting still stand? Where do we raise objections afterwards? And who tells the others if we change the decision?

Perhaps we had different ideas about when a decision becomes final. If decisions are repeatedly changed outside our meetings, I want to raise that too.

We do not have to agree on everything. But I want to know what I can rely on until we speak again.

Saying the first sentence

The longer I put off the conversation, the more it becomes a question about our whole working relationship in my head. Yet I can still name what prompted it: the chat message after our meeting. I try to come back to that while it is still fresh:

“I want to come back to our meeting yesterday. I think we have different ideas about what was supposed to apply afterwards. Do you have a few minutes today to clarify it together?”

The first sentence is often the hardest to get out. Afterwards, the conversation has often been less difficult than I imagined.