What do you do when someone seems to deliberately ignore your messages, then accuses you of not telling them something important?
This is the situation someone wrote to me about recently, asking for help. It is such a common problem I thought it might help to share the advice I gave so that it can help you too.
Has this happened to you? If it has, did you use any of these methods to stop it from happening again?
All the best,
Chris
P.S. If you have a communication situation you’d like help with, write to me and I’ll be happy to share some advice.
The Situation
“A member of my team seems to have selective hearing and it’s causing me to lose trust in them. A few months ago we decided to bring them to a trade show. I very clearly told him how pay works for events involving travel. We went over it again in our planning meeting before we left.
The event was fantastic and he did a phenomenal job.
Then, at around 10pm, at the end of the post-event team celebration, he came to see me to talk about his concerns with the way travel pay was calculated. He said I never brought it up before the show but I know for a fact we talked about it multiple times. I have no clue what else to do to make things clear.”
The Advice
First of all, as tempting as it is to attribute behaviour to a character flaw, that’s a slippery slope. There’s something called the fundamental attribution error, where we blame people and personality instead of looking for issues caused by the situation or process.
The problem is it is not usually a personality problem, it’s a process problem in the way the message was delivered and received (or not!)
As much as possible we should assume good intent from the other person, then take steps to remove the risk of misunderstanding happening again.
Here are a few ways you could handle it in a follow up conversation with the person this week. Take a look and pick the one that you think will work best for you.
1. Treat it as a “shared clarity failure”
Even if you explained the policy clearly, something prevented it from being retained. The cause doesn’t matter, whether he wasn’t paying attention or was selectively ignoring something he didn’t like, the result is the same.
Here’s what you could say in your next conversation:
I’m glad you raised the pay issue. I want us aligned on pay policies before we travel, every time. I’m confident I covered it before the event, and it sounds like it wasn’t clear for you.
So let’s fix this so there’s no ambiguity going forward. I’ll send you the documented trade show pay policy we’ve used consistently as a team for X years.
For similar situations, I’ll also provide the information by email so you can read it and reply with confirmation that it’s clear. That way we both know we’re aligned.”
This acknowledges there was unclear communication without asigning blame to either person. It also provides a clear process for the future that leaves no room for misinterpretation.
This is a method suggested by Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor.
2. Use a “Teach-Back” Method
An approach used in medical training can help here. After explaining a procedure, students must repeat it back as a summary and get agreement from the tutor.
In business, this becomes:
“Can you summarise what you heard back to me?”
If done in a non-patronising way, it works well. A simple way to introduce it is: “It’s easy to have misunderstandings, so this will help make sure we’re both on the same page.”
3. Address the Timing and Trust Issue Directly
The 10pm conversation is frustrating (it would be for me), but based on the first point, assume positive intent. Perhaps he waited until then so it wasn’t raised in front of others and he felt more comfortable discussing it privately.
Even so, you can set a boundary on timing and escalation:
“I want to hear concerns like this, and the right time is before the event or during planning, not at 10pm after a long day. If you feel something affects your compensation, I need you to raise it when we review it.”
Then add the accountability expectation:
“If you later say ‘you never told me,’ and I know we covered it, that damages trust. So going forward, we’ll confirm in writing and you’ll acknowledge it. That protects both of us.”
4. Shift the Accountability to Them
This approach takes some pressure off you. If he is careless with details or strategically rewriting history, make him accountable next time. And if he is genuinely mishearing, this fix provides structure and confirmation instead of more explanation.
Use a “bullet summary + confirm” habit, and give him ownership:
“You own confirming compensation and travel details before each show. If anything is unclear, let me know in writing.”
If you think he may be deliberately “forgetting” to serve his own ends, use a documentation-and-consequences approach:
“To avoid issues in the future, we’ll use written agreements for things like this. If something isn’t raised before travel, we assume alignment with the policy.”
This is consistent with negotiation and dispute-prevention best practice: reduce ambiguity, create records, and remove room for retroactive renegotiation.
Wrap up
It is frustrating when people don’t retain information we give them. It wastes time, damages trust, and can have us second guessing our own memories. When this happens, more explanation isn’t enough. Confirmation is what creates clarity. When you build simple habits like written summaries and teach-back, you remove ambiguity and protect trust. That way, you’re not relying on memory or assumptions, you’re relying on shared understanding.