The lost art of the unsent angry letter…revisited
Maria Konnikova wrote an interesting opinion column on “The Lost Art of the Unsent Angry Letter” in the New York Times. She refers to the long history of leaders and decision makers, as well as ordinary folks like ourselves, writing a letter to a person or about an issue that is not meant to be actually delivered. She cites individuals such as Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman who used this practice. It continues to be used as a way to have a cathartic moment, but also pause to re-read the document when emotions have cooled and a more rational perspective is accessible.
I think there is often value in gathering one’s thoughts and laying out the issues and emotions that may come up in response to a difficult, challenging or annoying situation, both in our personal as well as our work lives. When I am coaching others, however, I always advocate that we make sure we are responding, not reacting, to situations. A reaction is primarily emotionally based, fairly impulsive, and we tend to act and then think afterwards. In contrast, a response is a bit more cognitively based, involves pausing and making a decision, and you thinking, and then acting.
Ms. Konnikova notes, I think with great accuracy, that the more immediate aspects of social media and internet communication allow for many regrets when we may post ideas or thoughts a bit too quickly. There are negative consequences if we prematurely hit the send or reply button. What is particularly troublesome is that angry comments can then become viral and expand way beyond our intended social or professional network. The chain of responses and often accelerating vitriol that can occur in the comments sections of articles and postings are a good example. These interchanges often do not produce seasoned and thoughtful debate, especially if postings are anonymous.
I think there is value in writing down some thoughts and initial reactions, but extreme caution is warranted before we hit send or reply, or mail that letter. Waiting until the next day, or soliciting a second opinion from a trusted colleague, can help us avoid making statements that are not really productive nor help us achieve our ultimate end goal. I find I even need to be careful about the auto spell aspects of our email system. An internal invitation to a happy hour celebration or an office birthday lunch can go out to those individuals who have similar initials as my colleagues. That has led to a couple of big “oops” that necessitated follow up calls to unintended invitees.
I am curious to hear any experiences you have had in deciding what to send, or not send, to others. Are there particular norms within your organizational setting? I end with the comment I mentioned earlier, in that I certainly advocate that you aim to respond, not react.
