THE RUB
The email ruffled my feathers. I found the opening statement to be passive-aggressive. “I was not copied on this, but ____ shared with me today.” The implication being I had left them in the dark. The tone was condescending — explaining org structure like I didn’t understand it, and judgmental — sharing dire warnings like “I don’t want to drive a bigger wedge” and “I also think it could send a bad message.”
Everyone talks about AI being overly agreeable, but when I asked Claude to analyze the tone, it did not have my back. “Reads as collaborative and concerned, but carefully hedged. They’re raising a political worry without making a demand.” What?!? Why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to the sender and positively stating their intent? Clearly, I need more sympathetic sycophants in my inner circle.
The reframe did help me respond in a more productive manner. Ultimately, the sender wanted more information. Looking through that lens, I reduced my defenses and provided more details.
THE FRAMEWORK
I’ve been deconstructing the flow and quality of information thanks to retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. In If I Don’t Return, he writes,“Disinformation, misinformation, and malformation become tools of state and non-state actors.” He’s talking about the importance of reliable intelligence in war, but I see bad information regularly and never considered there are different types of bad.
Misinformation is most common. False information shared without intent to deceive. A coworker reads the wrong line on a report and shares an incorrect fact. I recently read an email wrong and shared my incorrect perspective with two colleagues and got others dialed up. What a relief when I went back to forward them the email and reread it correctly.
Disinformation is deliberate and more sinister. False information created or shared to mislead. This shows up to cover a mistake or assign blame somewhere else. A manager blames corporate for cutting overtime to avoid owning an unpopular call they made themselves.
Malinformation is true information shared with intent to harm. Side note: this is so uncommon that spell check insisted that I was trying to type malformation. A workplace example might be someone learns a coworker is interviewing elsewhere and mentions it in front of the boss to sink them.
Misinformation calls for better communication and correction. Disinformation is an integrity issue. Malinformation is often a trust and conduct issue, even when nothing said was false.
THE PRACTICE
The offending email was triggered by a lack of information. The sender made some assumptions that led them down the path of misinformation. I argue that’s the case because of who else was copied and the dire consequences they laid out, all based on incorrect assumptions.
Thankfully, I feel good that I paused and responded professionally instead of snapping back. I provided more details and steered us back on the path of good information.
What I'm not proud of is that I allowed my frustration to turn into malinformation. The email arrived at the end of the day. I knew I needed to sleep on it before responding. Meeting with a coworker first thing the next morning, I “vented” about this condescending email. I talked trash about the sender and felt morally superior.