Not Every Triangle Is Triangulation

We love Vu Le. At BetterWorld Partners, we regularly read and share Nonprofit AF because Vu is funny, smart, irreverent, and willing to say things about the nonprofit sector that many of us are thinking but are too polite – or perhaps too Minnesotan – to say out loud.

So when I read his recent piece, “Triangulation: What It Is, and Tips to Avoid Being Caught Up in Workplace Drama,” I was ready to be on board. Vu writes about that all-too-familiar habit of having a problem with someone and, instead of addressing it with them, taking it to someone else. And, as a New Yorker who moved to Minnesota, I FEEL YOU, VU.

I am a direct communicator. I like people to tell me what they think. Preferably using words. To my face. Before six other people know there is a problem I apparently don’t know we’re having. Talking about me instead of talking to me? Hate it. Passive aggression? Yep. Conflict avoidance? Let’s deal with the thing!

And then my consultant brain kicked in. Because, Vu, we love you. We are with you. And you have summoned the intercultural communication consultants.

I think we’re mixing a few things up. 

Direct and indirect communication are styles. Triangulation is a strategy.

Communication is cultural. We learn how to communicate from our people and all the cultural contexts that have shaped us. Direct communicators tend to value explicitness: Say what you mean. Name the problem. Get to the point. If something is wrong, tell me. Hello. That’s me.

Indirect communicators may pay more attention to context, relationship, harmony, and face-saving. Meaning isn’t always explicitly named; sometimes you’re expected to pick up on what’s not being said. NOT ME.

I’ve worked closely for ten years with someone whose communication style is very different from mine. There are moments when I’m thinking, Wait. Was THAT the thing? Is there another thing underneath the thing? I occasionally want subtitles.

But here’s what I’ve learned: my way isn’t inherently healthier. It’s just more familiar to me.

Many U.S. workplaces privilege directness – say what you mean, give feedback directly, address the person involved. But those expectations are cultural, too. In other cultural contexts, directly challenging someone, especially someone with greater age, status, or authority, may be inappropriate or disrespectful.

“Natural to me” and “universally right” aren’t the same thing.

Which brings me back to triangulation.

Vu describes triangulation as having an issue with Person B and, instead of addressing B, going to Person C to vent or complain. His examples involve recruiting allies, gossiping, creating narratives about people who aren’t in the room, or otherwise making the conflict bigger instead of resolving it. YES. Let’s not do that.

But that’s not the same thing as indirect communication.

Not Every Triangle Is Triangulation

I once coached a manager who knew she had a strongly direct communication style. She was struggling with an employee from a different cultural context. My client would give her feedback. The employee would listen politely and say yes. And then nothing would change.

My client was baffled.

So we got curious. Was there someone who knew this employee well and might help my client understand what she was missing?

My client talked with another manager: Here’s what’s happening. The way I’m communicating isn’t working. You know her better than I do. What might I be missing? How could I approach this differently?

It worked. She changed her approach, and the problem began to resolve.

Technically, we had Person A, Person B, and Person C. A TRIANGLE!

But it wasn’t triangulation.

She wasn’t recruiting an ally or building a case. She was seeking perspective so she could change her own approach. That’s not workplace drama. That’s intercultural competence.

The problem isn’t necessarily the triangle. It’s what we’re doing inside the triangle.

This distinction matters because triangulation, passive aggression, conflict avoidance, and indirect communication can start getting lumped together. But they’re not the same thing. A direct communicator can triangulate. A direct communicator can be passive-aggressive. A direct communicator can avoid conflict. Ask me how I know.

And an indirect communicator can be actively trying to resolve a conflict—even if the path doesn’t look like the one I would choose.

So maybe the important question isn’t simply, Did you talk to someone else? It’s, Why are you talking to them?

Are you looking for someone to take your side, validate your story, or carry your message? Or are you looking for perspective? Help understanding what you might be missing? Support figuring out how to approach the conflict?

And sometimes there are very good reasons not to “just talk to them directly.”

Vu acknowledges power dynamics, and that’s important. It’s much easier for a supervisor to say, “Please give me direct feedback,” than for an employee to trust that doing so won’t have consequences. Culture, identity, hierarchy, psychological safety, and past experiences all shape what’s possible.

So when someone brings us a conflict, maybe instead of immediately asking, Have you talked to them directly?, we get curious: What are you hoping will happen? What makes talking with this person difficult? Are you looking for an ally, or for perspective? What would help move this toward resolution?

Those questions tell us whether we’re triangulating or getting the support we need to address the conflict.

Vu, You’re Right About the Problem. I Think You’re Wrong About the Solution.

This is why I love Vu’s writing. He names things we need to talk about. And he’s right about triangulation. Let’s stop recruiting allies instead of resolving conflict. Let’s stop gossiping and building narratives about people who aren’t in the room.

And for the love of all things holy, please don’t create an octagon of workplace toxicity when a triangle was already more than enough geometry for one day.

Where I part ways with Vu is the idea that the answer is for all of us to become more direct.

Working with people whose communication styles differ from mine hasn’t made me less direct. But it has made me slow down, listen differently, check my assumptions, ask more questions, and consider what I might be missing.

That’s the intercultural work.

The antidote to triangulation isn’t necessarily direct communication. It’s communication that moves us toward resolution instead of deeper into the triangle. Sometimes that means going directly to the person. Sometimes it means getting some help first.

The work is knowing the difference.

I believe the solution is for all of us to become more adaptive. Because the goal isn’t to get everyone to communicate like us. It’s to get better at communicating with people who don’t.