Over-explaining is an easy trap, especially if you’re neurodivergent. Someone questions your concern, misreads your intent … the natural response is to clarify everything: what you meant, what you did not mean, why you are acting in good faith, why there’s a knife behind your back, etc.
I understand that instinct. Please let me be more exact and you will understand.
But more explanation does not always create more understanding. Sometimes it creates more material that can be reinterpreted, debated, or used to shift attention away from the actual issue.
That is where JADE, at least in theory, becomes useful.
JADE means:
-
Justify
-
Argue
-
Defend
-
Explain
Justification and explanation have their place. In healthy contexts, they are often necessary. In a complex or politicized organization, JADE can trap people in a defensive posture. The structural concern slips out of view, and the conversation becomes about your tone, motives, loyalty, wording, attitude, or emotional reaction.
Maybe a more useful replacement is state, anchor, redirect.
First, state the core point plainly.
My concern is that changes to responsibilities need to be clear and documented.
Not everything needs the full backstory. Start with the actual issue.
Then anchor the point to a neutral principle.
That matters for workload, accountability, and role clarity (or whatever)
This keeps the issue grounded in shared organizational concerns.
Then redirect away from motive, personality, or debate.
I think the next step is to clarify the process formally.
This helps prevent the conversation from becoming an argument about who meant what, who is upset, etc.