Communicating Under Stress in a Community Election

What we learned, what helped, and how we can do better next time

Community elections are rarely simple, and this year brought an unusual level of intensity. Many neighbors were excited to step forward, share ideas, and get involved; others felt overwhelmed by competing messages, urgent claims, and personal statements. All of us were navigating a shared environment shaped by stress, strong feelings, and a desire to improve and protect the place we call home.

This article is not about any one flyer or any one candidate. It is about what happens to communication under pressure, and how we can build healthier habits as a community.

Sincerity Is Not the Same as Accuracy

It is important to say clearly: We understand (and even hope) that many of the people who spoke or wrote most strongly this election — including board leaders and candidates — genuinely believed what they were saying.

Believing something strongly, however, does not make it complete or accurate.

Under stress, any of us can become a partial narrator of events:

• we remember the tensions we felt most sharply,

• we notice behavior that fits our fears,

• we overlook the impact of our own tone or choices on others,

• we repeat stories that match what we already believe.

In that sense, neighbors can be both sincere and unreliable narrators of what happened — not because they intend harm, but because they are not checking their own biases or the wider effects of their communication. Unreliable narrators rarely ask, "What if I'm wrong?" or "Is there another way this could have happened?"

When personalized, fear-based messaging is treated as simple “truth-telling,” it can unintentionally create an environment where other neighbors feel unsafe speaking, running for office, or even attending meetings.

Stress Narrows Communication Choices

Under stress, people often communicate in ways that feel urgent or protective:

• amplifying worst-case scenarios

• focusing on personalities instead of policies

• assuming intentions without enough information

• circulating unverified claims

• responding quickly instead of thoughtfully

These are human reactions — not moral failings — but they can create ripples of misunderstanding that spread far beyond the moment that triggered them.

Recognizing this is the first step toward improvement.

Personal Messaging Increases Community Anxiety

When communication focuses on:

• who is “good” or “bad,”

• who can or cannot be trusted, or

• what one neighbor supposedly believes or intends,

the entire emotional climate shifts.

Process, bylaws, and shared goals retreat into the background. Fear takes their place.

Even if the statements are meant to inform, personal framing makes participation feel risky, especially for newer residents or those not involved in past board discussions.

This is why systems-focused communication is essential during elections.

Fear-Based Messaging Travels Faster Than Facts

Fear-based messages spread more quickly than calm ones. This is especially true in small communities, where:

• everyone knows each other,

• rumors move quickly,

• and emotional safety matters deeply.

Fear simplifies complicated issues into stark choices. But it also reduces the space for nuance, curiosity, and genuine conversation.

When fear becomes the dominant lens, even neutral information is harder to process.

Silence Creates Space for Insecurity

Many neighbors told us:

“I wasn’t sure what to believe.”

This wasn’t because people lacked intelligence or good judgment — it’s because stressful environments make it harder to distinguish:

• fact from interpretation

• caution from alarm

• documentation from rumor

When clarifying information is delayed or withheld, confusion grows. This is why timely, transparent, and accessible communication is so important.

Calm Responses Require Intention, Not Passivity

One of the biggest lessons we learned is this:

Calm does not mean weak. Calm means deliberate.

It takes discipline to respond without escalating. It takes clarity to stay focused on values and documentation. It takes courage to refuse to mirror harmful messaging patterns.

This is the kind of leadership a community can rely on over time.

Emotional Ownership — Naming Our Own Reactions Instead of Projecting Them

One pattern we saw this election season is something psychologists call emotional attribution. Under stress, it is common to project our internal feelings onto someone else.

Instead of saying:

• “I felt pressured,”

• “I felt confused,” or

• “I felt uncomfortable,”

the language shifts to:

• “He is pressuring people,”

• “He is confusing everyone,”

• “He is making people uncomfortable.”

This is a natural reflex —our kids do this, too - but it can distort how we understand each other.

When we attribute our internal reactions to another person’s character, we unintentionally turn:

• stress into accusation,

• discomfort into judgment,

• concern into blame.

Owning our emotions (“I felt overwhelmed in that meeting”) creates space for conversation.

Projecting them (“He overwhelmed everyone in that meeting”) creates conflict.

Many of the claims made this season look very different when translated back into the emotional experiences that likely produced them. This is why Friends of Ken Lake focuses on “I” statements - it’s about taking responsibility for ourselves and our emotions.

When we make this shift — from projection to ownership — we make the community safer for disagreement, questions, and participation.