"Just"
Preamble
“Just” sucks. When anyone phrases something as “just” doing X or “it’s ‘just’ a simple fix”, it does several things.
It minimizes a person's struggle. Imagine you have been wrestling with a difficult change. This could be a process change, a habit change, a code change, really whatever; and are told “it’s ‘just’ doing Y”, that person is saying your difficulty is unwarranted or overblown. It creates shame and inadequacy.
The word “just” implies simplicity. And if someone is unable to do this “simple” thing, what does that say about them? This leads to feelings of “everyone else gets it, why can’t I?”
“Just” dismisses complexity. Change is rarely simple and that includes when the steps seem straightforward. People have emotional barriers, practical obstacles, timing issues and patterns to overcome. All of this nuance is erased with “just”.
“Just” shuts off communication. If a person's experience is minimized, they are less likely to talk about real challenges or ask for help. Nodding along while internally feeling more isolated.
But oddly enough, people use “just” when trying to encourage someone to make the thing they are trying to do feel more achievable. Unfortunately, this typically ignores the person's lived experience.
It may make sense to understand why language matters. Those words shape reality, and it is time we talked about shifts we can make.
“It’s ‘Just’ a Little heh heh…”
My introduction to the word “just” came around 2015. I was working in a rather small team (me and another dude, we will call him Rodney) and we were creating some custom software as people do. One day, I came to Rodney and started to talk about this new obviously wonderful idea we “just” had to add. After some whiteboarding and lively conversation, I said, “dude, it’s ‘just’ a little heh heh…” making a motion with my hands of a tiny item, like a small box, between my hands. Rodney’s eye began to twitch while trying to enlighten this obviously very foolish person talking to him of the inherent complexity and impacts of even attempting to create this “little heh heh”. That word “just” had more to it.
“Just” had done something more than describe a task. “Just” had transferred my values, assumptions, and dismissal of complexity to Rodney. This casual use of “just” invalidated his expertise. Years of experience with the codebase, the business logic, and, naturally, the technical debt we were carrying. That “just” said “none of that matters because I think this is simple.”
The framing as “just” a quick thing imposed my timeline on his reality. This was telling him how long it should take with no regard to what he knew about the actual work involved.
Instead of being able to explore the real challenges together, my “just” was deciding the conversation's fate. The complexity was dismissed before we could even discuss it.
And worse, in that “just”, that declaration of simplicity, made Rodney the problem and his position sound more like excuses than legitimate concerns.
This has a nice ending though. Rodney and I had a great working relationship, and with some friendly and some choice words, we were able to calmly talk about the complexities and it is something we laugh about whenever we get a chance to talk.
Common Language of “Just” is Currency
Imagine writing checks from someone else’s account while acting like you are being generous by keeping the amounts small.
“Just” often comes from people who won’t be paying the time cost to do the thing.
The exchange rate is being set. Stating something is “‘just’ a quick fix” unilaterally decides the time cost. Imagine walking into a store, grabbing an item that costs $200, and stating “this is just $2” and expecting the cashier to honor that assessment. Except in the case of the quick fix, the time and expertise is arbitrarily being decided.
There is an artificial scarcity and abundance created. “Just” makes the speakers' time (they need this “quick” fix) more valuable while treating the receivers' time as abundant or cheap. The implicit message is “My time is worth more than yours, so this trivial task should not matter to you.”
Further, “just” ignores the healthy economic exchange of negotiation for both parties involved to agree on value. The price, scope, and timeline - void of any input from the person/people that will pay the cost in time and effort - have been decided.
Finally, “just” disregards the true cost of production. Every task exists within a system of complex dependencies, opportunity costs, and technical debt. While the visible output might seem simple, the actual production costs involve the entire system.
“…, Right?”
“It’s ‘just’ a simple UI change, ‘right?’”
“This database change is ‘just’ as quick update, ‘right?’”
“We ‘just’ need to move the deadline up a week, ‘right?’”
That little “right?” is wicked. It changes the entire transaction from a declaration of simplicity into a manipulative act. While appearing to be a question, it isn’t. It is a statement slapped with the clown makeup of a question. The receiver is now being asked to cosign a decision that has already been made.
The social pressure of saying “no” to a question feels much harder than pushing back on a clear statement. Humans have a natural tendency to be agreeable and avoid conflict. Have you ever needed to be the person that says “no, that is completely wrong” as a response to what seems like a reasonable question?
If the receiver agrees with that “right?” they then are complicit in the underestimation. Now, when this “simple” task's inevitable complexity arises, the receiver now owns it.
Words Aren’t “Just” Words
It may be worth thinking about words as more than “just” communication and closer to the infrastructure of human collaboration. Every choice of words can build or erode relationships, create or destroy trust, and establish or undermine the respect needed between people, which makes doing complex work possible.
The word “just” is an example of a word that helps define value systems, whose expertise will matter, and what the power dynamics will be, all while determining exchange rates for human effort. And deciding who among us has the power to negotiate and who doesn’t.
We could think of these things as abstract concepts, but they are more than that. These are the things that shape the relationships within organizations and teams. The language we use determines which teams thrive or fracture. If people feel valued or exploited. And if innovation is able to happen, or if it is crushed under the weight of dismissed expertise, experience, and complexity.
“Just” is an example of patterns we inherit in our speech that carries assumptions left unexamined. “Just” has the feeling of being helpful because we want to think of things as achievable. While “right?” has the feeling of being collaborative, as it appears, we are including others' ideas and feedback in the conversation. Welcoming them into the decision-making process. Impact matters more than intent.
Choosing precision over convenience means each time we say “an approach we might try” over “‘just’ do X”, or “what do you think about” over “that’s a simple thing to do, ‘right?’” - a small investment is being made in treating people as whole humans instead of extensions of our own assumptions.
The words we choose can be viewed as the currency of respect. How we decide to spend that currency exposes where our true values live.
Closing Thought
If any of this made you think “I don’t need to worry about this stuff with AI coming on so strong, everyone will be talking with agents more anyway.” Then live and be well. After all, it’s “just” an article…, “right?”
References
[1] Krugman, P., 2009, “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008”, W.W. Norton Company Limited (Moral Hazard)
[2] Levitt, Steven D., and Dubner, Stephen J., 2009, “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything”, William Morrow Paperbacks