I was cruising along on my Peloton to Sam Yo’s Autumn Recovery Ride when he said something that made me think: “Respond, don’t react.” Sam is a great instructor who not only provides a good guide to the workout, but also some food for thought which, combined with the leisurely pace, gave me the luxury of turning over what “respond, don’t react” can mean a few times while getting some cardio in.
To me, responding rather than reacting means being intentional rather than instinctive when confronted with a novel or unpleasant stimulus, and it is a strategy that has many applications in the realms of conflict resolution and interpersonal communication. Taking the time to respond rather than react can prevent misunderstandings and misery.
That’s not to say that reacting is all bad; it has many good aspects. Reacting is quick and certain: simply do or say the first thing that comes to mind, loudly and decisively.
There is a time and place for quick reactions. They can be lifesaving. Potential prey that moves quickly after spotting a predator can live another day. One that spends time pondering the possibilities while the predator pounces, not so much. We might be evolutionarily hard-wired to react quickly when under stress. When scampering about the savanna, seeking food and fighting for survival, that is a good thing. But when the dangers that set us off are more subtle and longer-term than claws and teeth, a quick, emotional reaction can cause more problems than it solves.
That is where responding comes into play. To respond, one first thinks: what outcome do I want here? The next step is to work backwards from that outcome, focusing on what immediate action will move things closer to the desired outcome. Finally, one says or does whatever lines up with steps one and two, observes the response, and adjusts accordingly.
For example, let’s say that Fred gets a passive aggressive email from a distant co-worker—someone that he interacts with occasionally, but doesn’t know very well. For the sake of argument, we can say that the email snidely reminded Fred of work that was overdue. Fred checked his email and confirmed that he had never been made aware of this work or this deadline.
How might Fred react? A few ways, summed up by the alliteration fight, flight, freeze, or fawn.
- Fight: Fred slaps back with an angry response, accusing the emailer of gross incompetence, slack-jawed stupidity, poor personal hygiene—whatever helps him get revenge for being made to feel small. No one gets one over on Fred.
- Flight: Fred ignores the email and dives into another project.
- Freeze: Fred, unable to move on, simply stares at his computer screen, paralyzed.
- Fawn: Fred immediately emails an apology and assures the emailer that the work is on the way. If pressed, he will apologize for not having received the initial email setting the deadline, even though that isn’t in his control. If he discovers that he isn’t qualified to perform the work, he will find a quick YouTube tutorial and get it done.
I think we can see the limitations of these reactions. Fight might make sense if the confrontation is purely physical, Fred has a good chance of emerging triumphant, and there aren’t any legal strictures against personal violence that could lead to complications. For strictly verbal violence, an angry email at the very least would result in hurt feelings, might spark a grudge, and could even lead to disciplinary action. Flight and freeze in this scenario seemingly just delay the inevitable, with the bonus of making things at least slightly worse. Fawn solves the problem, but at the expense of giving Fred a lot of work that he didn’t sign up for—hardly an optimal solution.
Four reactions, and none of them helped Fred.
Let’s see what a response might look like. Instead of dashing off the first thing that comes to mind, whether confrontational or conciliatory, or kicking the can down the road, Fred chooses to take the time to respond rather than react.
First, Fred checks his inbox. When was the last time that he and the sender corresponded? Were they copied on an email by a third party setting this deadline? Leaving no stone unturned, he even looks through his spam folder, aware that things have ended up there. He finds nothing suggesting that he was supposed to get this work done, and certainly nothing about a deadline.
He then considers the possibilities: 1) He agreed to do the work, with no documentation, and forgot. That’s possible, but it’s not the kind of thing Fred usually does. 2) Someone else volunteered Fred for the work and didn’t tell him. 3) The sender assumed that Fred was going to do the work but never confirmed. 4) The sender is confusing Fred with someone else.
Fred now puts himself in the sender’s shoes. If I knew someone was supposed to get something back to me by a deadline and didn’t do it, he thinks, I might send a snarky email. It seems that either Fred or the sender have some bad information here.
Fred’s preferred outcome is to keep his job, maintain his self-respect, and not needlessly antagonize people. He has a hunch of what he wants to do, but takes a minute to run it by a confidante. He’s not venting or painting the sender as the villain here, just stating the facts to get another read on them.
The most likely reasons for the email seem like numbers two or four, so Fred thinks that a courteous email requesting more information while not admitting or accusing the sender of wrongdoing seems like the best bet. He is careful to keep his tone polite, both because it is the nice thing to do but also because, if the sender responds explosively, someone reading the exchange will see that Fred has done everything to deescalate the situation.
Fred presses send.
A half-hour later, Fred gets an apologetic email back. It turns out that the sender accidentally sent the email to Fred. The sender is genuinely grateful that Fred didn’t throw fuel on the fire. Had Fred reacted instead, he and the sender might have escalated things, or the sender might have gotten frustrated when Fred didn’t respond, assuming that they had emailed the correct person and not heard anything back.
That’s just one example of how a reasoned response rather than a knee-jerk reaction can make all the difference. While it may be difficult not to react in a stressful situation, taking the time and discipline to instead respond could ultimately be a stress reducer.
So until next time, expect the unexpected, stay informed, and I’ll stay informal.
30
