The red chair problem

Two people use the same words to describe an idea. That shared understanding becomes the basis of an interaction. It turns into an unexpected problem when that understanding turns out to be flawed.

The red chair problem is a conclusion I arrived at at some point about a decade ago. I’m not saying I invented it, neither do I claim some kind of award for arriving at it myself. I’m just saying I arrived at it in the same way acorn if lucky, germinates and if lucky, makes it into a young whip, and if very lucky and manages to avoid deer browsing grows into a young tree, and if lucky …

The red chair problem is when people start a conversation, engagement, relationship / whatever based on a shared understanding (e.g. a “red chair”) without being clear about the specifics of the shared understanding. It’s one of the two fundamental problems that lead to conflict. The second is the “navigation problem”, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

How I frame it

Imagine that you are looking to buy a red chair. You are delighted to learn that I make and sell red chairs. We enter into an agreement where I’m going to make and sell you a red chair. We’re pleased and excited. You’re excited because you’ve found someone to make your red chair and I’m pleased with the business. There’s been no problems and we’re all getting along swimingly.

Ok, at this point I want you, the reader, to clearly picture in your head the red chair you expect to get from me. Very clearly picture it.

Some period of time passes and I get in touch with you and inform you that your red chair is ready and you come to collect. You arrive, you take one look at it and a big problem births itself into existance. Yes, I’ve made you a red chair, but it is not what you expected.

You wanted what you wanted (refer to your mental picture of it) and I made you a delightful woven hazel chair with oak framing, 3 metres in height and stained it a vivid red. Whilst it is a lovely chair, it doesn’t meet your expectations.

Careful with your assumptions

Obviously, this is a very contrived example. For furniture it’s easy to show each other pictures that align with our expectations or draw and sketch. After all, a picture says a thousand words. But when matters cannot be communicated through imagery, then communicating the precise definition becomes hard 1. I use a red chair as example as it stands out, but when communicating with people in any context be careful with the assumption that your words translated correctly into a shared understanding. Some examples…

We support all new hires when onboarding…

Support is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Do you mean, here’s a laptop and a README.md or do you mean you’ll fly and house new employees in a hotel for a week so they can be in the office and be buddied with an experienced member of staff?

We’ll compensate you for your time…

What specifically does compensation translate to?

Just as fish may be unaware of water or humans unaware of gravity, it pays to be mindful of your words. Especially in commercial contexts and always in social contexts. In my humble, non-philosophy-educated position, falling foul of the red chair problem is by far one of the biggest causes of conflict. Sometimes it’s an accident, occasionally it’s negligence and sometimes, sadly, by design.

And then there’s the navigation problem…

  1. A classic example from the design world is when a client asks for something “clean, simple and elegant”. ↩