Observation, Interpretation and Conflict

The argument before the argument

A colleague changes a meeting without asking. The observable event is a calendar change. The interpretation may be that your time is being disregarded. If the first message you send treats that interpretation as established, the conversation begins with an accusation rather than a question. This illustrative example is not a claim about the colleague’s motives. It shows how an assumption can silently become the starting point of a response.

Make the claim testable

Replace ‘You never respect my time’ with a concrete description: ‘This meeting was moved after I arranged my afternoon around it.’ The second statement does not require agreement about a personality trait. It identifies an event that can be discussed. Next ask what happened and explain the practical impact. The aim is not to remove emotion from the exchange; it is to give the other person something specific to respond to.

Choose the question that changes the decision

Some questions seek information; others mainly express a verdict. Ask yourself what answer could genuinely change your next step. If no answer would matter, you may already be treating the discussion as a confrontation. In the meeting example, learning whether there was an emergency could affect the response. It would not erase the inconvenience, but it might change the conclusion about intent.

Review the pattern over time

A single incident and a repeated pattern deserve different discussions. Keep dates, agreements and practical consequences distinct from global labels. If the issue repeats, the conversation can address an observable process: how changes are requested, who confirms them and what notice is expected. This editorial framework concerns ordinary communication. It does not require tolerating intimidation or unsafe behaviour, and it is not a clinical explanation of anyone involved.