Facts, assumptions, and attributed intentions

What do you know, and what are you interpreting?

A colleague hasn’t replied to a message about covering a shift. You assume they’re deliberately ignoring you. But for now, all you know is that no reply has arrived by a certain time. You don’t know whether they’ve read the message, were working, or thought the proposal was something to confirm. Uncertainty about their intentions doesn’t mean the lack of a reply has no consequences.

You could start the conversation like this: “I sent a proposed shift cover on Tuesday and haven’t had confirmation yet. I need to finalize the rota today. Did you get the message, and can you let me know?” You state what you observed, explain why it matters for the task at hand, and ask a question. You’re not asking them to admit to an intention you haven’t checked.

Separate what happened, your interpretation, and the impact. What happened is that confirmation is missing. One interpretation might be that you’re being ignored. The impact is uncertainty when planning. You can talk openly about the impact even if you don’t know the cause. If the other person corrects a fact, check the available evidence. Perhaps they replied through another channel or the message didn’t send.

This isn’t about finding an excuse at any cost. If the problem keeps happening, name specific examples and previous agreements. One technical glitch doesn’t automatically explain a whole pattern. At the same time, “You always ignore me” replaces verifiable events with an imprecise generalization. The right next step depends on what you find out: fixing the communication channel, setting a clear deadline for confirmation, or addressing a repeatedly missed agreement with the appropriate person.