This underpins all of the other reflection points on this page. As our dear friends once used to say: always be kind. This shouldn't be conflated with always being nice: sometimes we have to disagree or highlight uncomfortable things in order to be kind.
Am I choosing words with thought to how they are going to be interpreted? Could I choose to use other terms that are less likely to cause distress? Even if I don't consider certain words offensive, am I taking other people's feelings into account?
Have I taken into consideration the needs and constraints of those around me as individuals?
Some examples:
- Have I made assumptions about this person based on how they appear or identify?
- Do other people have experiences I have not had, that cause us to look at the world differently? Can I learn from this?
- Has this person faced challenges that I'm not aware of, and might this explain differences of approach or belief?
- Is it understandable for a non-native English speaker to mis-use terms?
- Is this person uncomfortable because they've never met someone like me?
When pairing, we try and align people's body clocks as much as possible by starting at the same time, and taking breaks at the same time. Other people may have concerns and rhythms that might not be outwardly obvious.
- What is my pair's sleep cycle like? Are they peaking in the morning, or afternoon?
- Have I considered that another person may have gynaecological issues, such as cramps, PMT or menopausal hot flushes?
- Do the people around me have different biological needs, such as reasons for more toilet breaks?
- Is the person next to me fidgeting because they are diagnosed with ADHD or similar?
- Are other people using medication that may require more frequent breaks, or may create behaviours that need accommodating?
Have I been brave and tactfully made other people aware of ways I'd like to be accommodated?
Whilst we all have an obligation to be considerate and anticipate that others have needs which we do not, we can help our peers to help us by communicating those needs. By discussing issues we can help normalise the things that make us different, and foster a culture where people can be frank and open.
We hire for social sensitivity and kindness. We should be able to have conversations about how we can best work together.
Am I dismissing the tendencies of others to do things differently than I would as weaknesses? Am I considering that alternative approaches might balance out my own weaknesses?
Conflict and argument often arise out of differences in belief. If we believe in an objective truth (notwithstanding that such a belief is not universally held) we can often resolve those conflicts by first talking enough to understand what the difference of belief is, and then searching for an objective truth such that we can align our beliefs towards it.
Some conflicting beliefs are more likely to be innate and practically unverifiable, at which point, tolerance is the only strategy available. Ethics fall into this category.
An example: some people and cultures believe that the group is more important than the individual, and other people and cultures believe that the individual is more important than the group. A society that believed one or the other in totality at the population level would either be repressive or unable to function. Hence the subpopulations of each belief must co-exist at some level of dynamic equilibrium, and whether either is right or wong is a matter of philosophy and thus is unlikely to be resolved in a Slack conversation.
The Righteous Mind is recommended reading.
Exclusion is the opposite of inclusion, and division is both a cause and effect of exclusion.
Am I discussing issues in a divisive way? Am I 'preaching to the choir' or am I communicating as if I'm talking to someone who holds different beliefs? Would I phrase things the same way if I was speaking in-person, one-to-one, with someone who disagrees with me?