Protect Your Peace: A Conflict About Power, Not a Car.

Conflict doesn’t always look like yelling or cursing somebody out. Sometimes it’s quiet. Sometimes it’s in the tone, the silence, the “reply-all.” That’s the kind of conflict I’ve been dealing with at work. And the theme that keeps coming up is what Kislik calls using communication intentionally to navigate power. For me, that looks like documentation as protection.

Recently, my supervisor and I had a full conversation where he approved me taking a department vehicle. Time, purpose, everything was crystal clear. Two days later, when I signed the car out, the system sent the standard automated email that goes out to everyone (him, me, and the managers of the fleet division), you know, just a normal notification saying I had the vehicle.

He hit “reply all” and wrote:

“I did not authorize this request. Why would you need a vehicle? Please return immediately.”

As if we never spoke.

As if I took it on my own.

As if I was being irresponsible or sneaky.

And I knew exactly what that was. He is currently under external review because of complaints I filed, so it benefits him to build a paper trail that paints me as the problem. If he can create a record that I act without authorization, it helps him later. The subtle difference between miscommunication and strategy is where he chooses to hid his malice.

What I wanted in that moment was simple:

Accuracy. Respect. And to not be lied on.

I didn’t respond by email right away. I called him. I verbally showed him how this comes across in regard to my character. He said i could have simply responded to the email. I reminded him that in the past when I’ve responded to inconsistent emails, I’ve been made to look the bad guy. I asked him directly to clarify the email. I gave him hours. He chose not to. So I then hit reply-all.

Not to be petty.

Not to be dramatic.

But because if you intentionally attempt to discredit me publicly, I will correct you publicly.

I wrote the facts clearly:

• We spoke Wednesday at 3:17 PM.

• You approved the vehicle for Fridays usage.

• You confirmed which vehicle.

• You told me it was approved.

• I even mentioned that as per our phone call, you authorized me to continue driving the vehicle instead of returning it immediately.

This is me documenting what already happened, clearing up any confusion, and ensuring all who was now in the know, knew correctly.

His response was:

“Noted. Moving forward, you don’t need to address all, especially after you and I spoke. The principals on the email chain do not need clarity on communication within my unit.”

Sir, YOU addressed all. YOU pulled an audience into the room. I didn’t. And I will not let my name sit in a lie because you’re trying to manage your own narrative.

My response: I removed all others off the email thread and respectfully stated that if he doesn’t wish for an audience, he should refrain for adding one as it is imperative for me to keep my name clear. 

He never responded. 

This is where Kislik’s guidance comes in. She explains that conflict isn’t always about the surface issue. It’s about the meaning behind actions. The conflict was never about the car. It was about controlling the narrative.

If we apply Kislik’s recommendations:

• Naming the real issue (power and perception) could have prevented escalation.

• Aligning around shared values (honesty, clarity, mutual professionalism) could have made the conversation straightforward.

• Making space for accountability could have ended it quickly.

But when someone is invested in rewriting reality, you have to protect your own.

Conflict doesn't always require matching energy. Sometimes the most powerful thing you do is document the truth, calmly and clearly. Remember, when someone tries to rewrite reality, protect your story by providing receipts.

Now for you're viewing pleasure, check out this video by Lola Divine on how people have no problem disrupting your peace. They only take issue with you calling them out on it!

BOSS OR NEIGHBOR: PROTECT YOURSELF!