A great practice we follow at work is the setting of working agreements. Championed by Aussie powerhouse Atlassian, working agreements are shared values and behaviours that you agree to as a team.

We have several, from the mundane but important “We value work-life balance”, through to the scar-tissue driven “We reduce the risk of production issues by ALWAYS testing our code before requesting review”.

Of all our working agreements, I think my favourite is this one:

Knowing that communication via text often lacks context, we deal with our stakeholders and each other following the Principle of Charity. When something is ambiguous, we seek to clarify through a call.

The Principle of Charity suggests when interpreting others’ statements, you should assume the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one they meant. It suggests that we should assume good intentions about others and their ideas, and give them the benefit of the doubt before criticising them. Our default assumption should be that everyone is smart, means well (and has no malice) and is doing their best.

I can’t remember where I first heard of this principle, but I’ve found it to be a useful tool, especially when at work the majority of communication is via text.

Because I am an engineer, I am fond of the Dialectical Principle of Charity, which is a systematic way to apply the principle in 4 steps.

Let’s work through an example to demonstrate:

I’ve worked around data and reporting for a while, and in that time have encountered messages from customers like this:

“The data is wrong. The process is broken.”

Step 1: Assume the best interpretation of the statement

The first step is to take the message at face value, and interpret it in the most rational, charitable way possible. The person who sent this likely means that they are seeing some issue or disruption in the data flow, and they are expressing this issue in broad terms due to uncertainty or frustration. Instead of assuming they are doing this deliberately (by being uncooperative, or that they don’t know what they are talking about), we can take the position that they are genuinely trying to tell us about some problem that needs fixing.

In our example message, we could apply this first step by interpreting it as a genuine report of a problem, rather than a vague or emotional complaint.

To take this further, we can replay their statement back to them with this charitable interpretation, asking clarifying questions to make sure we are on the same page.

Step 2: Feedback questions: Make sure we understand

To ensure that we are both talking about the same thing, we should ask clarifying questions. This avoids misinterpretation, and makes sure we are solving the right problem (if there is in fact a problem at all to solve).

An example response to this initial message, combining our charitable interpretation of their message with these feedback questions might be

“Hey, it sounds like you think there is an issue with some data process. Can you provide more detail about the issue you’re seeing? What is the specific process that has a problem, and what is that problem?”.

We can continue asking questions until we are sure we are both talking about the same thing. Eventually we get to something like

“I was comparing the finance system dates to the month end report, and all the dates are off by an hour since the start of the month. Something is broken”

Now we are getting somewhere. From here, we can talk about the actual claim, rather than some nebulous “data is broken”. From here, we can move on to critique or solutions.

Step 3: Assertive Questions and Critiques: Test the statement is true

Now that we know we are both talking about the same thing, we can critically assess the statement or claim. This isn’t about dismissing it outright, but actually engaging with what they have said, and assessing any gaps.

So an example here might be asking “What do you mean by ‘broken’? What is the impact? When you say the dates don’t match, how are you validating that? Is it always 1 hour, and only since the 1st of the month? Is it for all records, or a subset of them?”

This shifts some of the burden of proof back to them to provide evidence. We need to do this to protect ourselves from Brandolini’s Law. Simply put, it is much easier to make a claim than to refute it.

They come back to us with some queries and evidence of the issue they are seeing, including the fact this only seems to be happening for certain geographic regions and zones. With all the facts, and some verification on our side, we can form a “Steel Man” version of their argument. Make it as strong as possible, and make sure they agree with you. Doing this makes the person feel as though you really understand their issue, and also makes sure that you are addressing the actual problem.

We can restate their original claim (“The data is wrong, something is broken”) in its strongest terms:

“Based on the numbers you’ve given me, it looks like as of the 1st, records in the report are an hour ahead of the finance system for some specific geos. This could be a technical problem, but could also be due to something else. Could that be the case?”

By reformulating the issue in a very specific way, we are showing that we really understand the issue, which makes talking about how to fix it much easier.

Step 4: Questioning our own view

After we have critically engaged with the question, it is important that we reflect on our own perspective. This is about being open-minded and to avoid being rigid, so we can consider all possibilities.

Some questions to ask yourself here could be:

  • “Is it possible that we are assuming this is a bug when it could be something else?”
  • “Have I overlooked any possible external factors that could be causing this?”

When we do this reflection, we could come to a realisation. The times are an hour ahead, only in specific geos, since the first of the month. Is this Daylight Savings Time?

We come back to the request and ask

“Does this look like it is daylight savings time related?”

From here, we might still have a problem to fix, or maybe the person asking just made a mistake and forgot to account for DST in their reconciliation. We got there much faster and with less stress following this process however. In the end, following our 4 step process leads to a more productive discussion and helps to resolve the issue efficiently.

Notes and Troubleshooting

When we follow this process, there are a few things we need to consider:

1. Your charitable interpretation might be wrong

It is important to remember that what you think is the best possible interpretation of their message might not be what the other person believes is the best interpretation of their message.

  • They might be irrational
  • You might be irrational (or are missing some key information. This is why asking clarifying questions is so important)
  • You might both be right, but disagree

What following the principle of charity does give you is a way to have these conversations constructively and get to a place of shared understanding sooner, even if the outcome isn’t what you hoped for.

2. Some statements cannot be interpreted charitably

I am not suggesting that the customer is always right here, and we need to have saintlike patience. The actual definition of the principle of charity states to consider the best, strongest interpretation of a statement when a coherent, rational interpretation is available. If a message is clearly not intended to have a resolution (someone is being a complainypants), or the other person is acting in bad faith, we don’t always need be the bigger person. Imagine in our example that we asked our clarifying questions (trying to be charitable), and the person refuses to cooperate, and continues in the same manner (i.e., “what is wrong with it?” “I said it is broken”). They obviously have no interest in engaging constructively, and you shouldn’t need to take the burden of continuing to engage with this person acting in bad faith. In this situation, it’s okay to just address the content of their statement without trying to figure out their actual meaning (“I don’t know what ‘broken’ means”).

3. The other person is not being charitable to our statements

Although this can be annoying, the best thing we can do is to clarify our statements, and try and drive the conversation back on track. If you feel seriously misinterpreted, point out the difference between that interpretation and your actual intent with the other person.

Wrapping up

The Principle of Charity isn’t about being “nice” - it’s about having better conversations. By assuming the best possible interpretation of someone’s statement, we are able to better focus on the issue at hand, rather than nonsense and misunderstandings. It’s a tool for building mutual respect, professionalism and better relationships at work (even when we disagree). Next time you find a message frustrating or unclear, ask yourself “What’s the most reasonable way to interpret this?”.

It helps me, I hope it helps you too!