How We Talk About People Who Aren’t in the Room
I’ve been frustrated by how casually conversations about work can become conversations about someone who isn’t there to answer.
A problem comes up. Someone mentions a colleague. Before long, the discussion has moved from what happened to what that person is supposedly like.
We haven’t clarified the problem or decided what to do. We have just made the person easier to dismiss next time.
That bothers me, especially when it becomes a recurring habit within a team.
There are legitimate reasons to discuss someone’s work without them present. A manager may need advice. A colleague may need to report harmful behavior. A technical review may uncover a mistake that needs attention before a larger conversation can happen.
I’m not asking people to pretend everything is fine, or to confront someone directly when that would be inappropriate.
I’m asking us to notice whether the discussion is helping anyone address the situation.
“This endpoint returns an unexpected result; here is the request and response” gives us something to investigate. “They never know what they’re doing” invites everyone to make the next problem fit a story about the person.
One can lead to a correction. The other can linger long after anyone remembers the incident that started it.
Frustration doesn’t make us immune to this. Neither does being right about the underlying mistake. It is possible to have a valid concern and handle it in a way that makes working together harder.
That standard needs to apply to the people we agree with, too. If I object only when the target is someone I like, I’m defending a side rather than improving the conversation.
A useful interruption can be small:
“What specifically happened?”
“What do we need from them?”
“Who is going to follow up?”
Those questions bring the discussion back to something we can act on. They also leave room for context we may not have.
Leadership has a particular responsibility here. Casual remarks from someone with authority can shape how others treat a colleague. I want leaders to be careful about turning their irritation into the team’s accepted explanation of a person.
I want the same care from myself.
We should be able to talk honestly about mistakes, disagreements, and difficult behavior. We should also be able to explain what those conversations are meant to accomplish.
If all we are doing is taking turns putting someone down, we can stop calling it problem-solving.