.png)
3 days ago
1
Last week, during a public conversation in a channel, there was a request, and it wasn’t clear to me who was responsible for handling that type of request. Instead of asking this question publicly in the thread, I sent a private message to a colleague to ask who they thought should have handled it.
Right after that message I realized it was one of those many cases where I preach well but practice poorly. Yes, I failed to practice exactly what I constantly remind my team about public conversations. I always promote open discussions, documented and shared decisions to keep everyone informed, but I was the first to fall short of this.
This reminded me that I had already gathered some information about this in the past, as well as taken a few actions over time to help mitigate the problem.
There are some patterns of “messages that travel through private conversations” that I’ve seen repeated over the years in almost every company I’ve worked for. Even when the companies weren’t yet distributed and people were physically in the office, I always saw this kind of behavior, though with slightly different dynamics.
The Pre-Flight Check
«Can I say this?»
«Is what I’m going to say correct?»
«Can I ask you publicly to do so?»
«I’m sorry if I’m going to tag you in this thread but…»
and dozens of other similar questions in a private channel before sending the message.
The Great Migration
Conversations started in a public channel that, at a certain point, are moved in a private chat/meeting. Totally fine to turn an async convo into a sync one, don’t get me wrong. But, at least, we should write a recap at the end of it.
The Fait Accompli
Decisions taken privately that magically appear in a public channel.
For a long time, I tried to understand what I was doing wrong. Because no matter how hard I tried, the results were never what I hoped for. In the end, I found some answers by looking at my own behavior first. There’s nothing scientific about what I’m about to say, just reflections and conversations with colleagues.
You know that feeling right before you’re about to post something on LinkedIn? That tiny pause when your brain runs a lightning-fast calculation of all the possible ways you could be misunderstood? Or even worse, criticized? Well, it’s not so different when you have to do it in any other public place.
Sometimes, writing in public isn’t just writing. It’s:
considering multiple audiences at once: “What will the CEO think? And the new junior?”
editing for universal clarity
anticipating objections from either people you don’t even know or from people you already know exactly what they’ll say
The same message takes five seconds to write in a private chat, and five minutes in a public one.
Posting on a public channels enables the same circuits of when you’re in a public place: caution, formality. distance. In private, on the other hand, you can be yourself. You can say “I have a silly question” without feeling judged by an invisible audience.
And the frustrating thing is that even when we rationally know the team is safe, that no one is judging, our instinct still whispers “Too many people are listening, better talk about it in private”.
Think about the last time you had to explain a complex situation from your team to someone outside. How much background did you have to give? How much history did you have to tell?
In private you can write something like: «Like that time with Project X, remember?».
In public, the same message becomes: «Like in Q3 2023, when we had a similar situation where… [200 words of context]».
It demands a degree of explicitness that’s mentally exhausting. It’s a bit like having to cook for your family (who already know what they like) versus cooking for 20 guests with unknown allergies and preferences.
Being vulnerable in public is a high-risk investment with uncertain payoff.
For some reasons we are used to think that when we admit we don’t know something in public the cost is immediate: everyone sees our ignorance. The benefit is uncertain: someone might help.
On the other hand, when you write in private, the cost is limited: only one person sees that you don’t know. The benefit, instead, is immediate: you get help right away, safely.
From the previous section, it might almost sound like an admission of defeat, as if there were nothing to do but accept this behavior and adapt.
The reality, however, is a bit more nuanced: as mentioned earlier, nothing will ever replace the comfort of a conversation in a safe setting, yet there are ways to mitigate the behaviour and make sure communication is guaranteed.
The most important one, IMHO. When I receive a private message that I know could be useful to others or would benefit from input from other people, I ask to move the conversation into a public channel. At first, however, to “break the ice” and emphasize the importance of the gesture, I offer to post it myself in the public channel, saying something like «Great question! I’ll post it in the public channel so it can be useful to everyone».
Anyone who has worked with me knows how much importance I place on this practice. So much so that, at the beginning, I spend a lot of time with my team members doing a kind of “Pre-Flight Check” (yes, the one mentioned in the patterns even if it may seem contradictory).
During this guided session, I provide feedback on the message they plan to post publicly. The goal isn’t to steer the conversation, but simply to ease some of the initial stress.
It’s unbelievable how much stress can be reduced just by declaring something like Work In Progress. I’m not saying you should lie of course but you might consider the option of start asking for feedback in early stages. Declaring something a draft, in the process of being finalized, somehow has two advantages: on the one hand, it exposes us less, as if to say “hey, it’s not the final version yet”; on the other, it empowers people more to expose themselves, to collaborate and share their thoughts.
The idea is that every decision made in private should produce a public summary within a working day. The goal is to make private discussions more “costly”, without banning them because it doesn’t make any sense, while still ensuring information is shared. In recent years, this has become less costly, as we’ve been surrounded by tools that can automatically generate summaries of every conversation.
I know, I started this issue mentioning that this happened to me just one week ago but, being the example is always the most effective approach. People follow what you do so, if you want public conversations, you have to be the first to: ask “stupid” questions in public, admit mistakes in the general channel, think out loud where everyone can see, show uncertainty without hiding it behind corporate speak.
The hardest part of all this is that you can’t measure what you don’t have access to. So how can you tell whether important information is actually flowing through the right channels?
There are some micro-signals I look for:
Someone references a public discussion in a meeting
A person who usually DMs you tries the public channel
Number of people who responds to public questions: it should increase in the long run
Number of questions about process/tools, “I don’t understand” admissions, “I made a mistake” shares, etc.
But the most important signal is the Crisis Test: when something goes wrong (missed deadline, customer complaint, failed release), where does the discussion happen?
If I were to end by sharing the biggest mistake I’ve made, it would be trying to force public behaviors without acknowledging the emotional and cognitive cost they entail. Building relationships and having conversations in safe contexts is part of our nature.
The goal, then, shouldn’t be to discourage these behaviors, but rather to ensure they are effective and don’t disadvantage the entire group.
Credits: Illustration 1
