How dare you say that to me
Learn to separate the tone from the substance
A guy on a bike shouted “MOVE OVER!” at me and my friends as we walked along a path.
My friends were furious.
“He has a point,” I said. It was a two-way path and we were too spread out.
“Fine, but he doesn’t have to yell like that,” argued one friend. She had a point too.
Everyone had a valid point, and they all ended up angry with each other.
Complaints, and how they are made and handled, are one of my obsessions. Resolving complaints is an essential part of conflict resolution. But the substance of the complaint is often overshadowed by its delivery.
In this case, if the bike guy had changed his tone and been polite, my friends would have moved out of the way without thinking anything of it.
Or if my friends were accustomed to people communicating via sudden loud noises, they would have moved over without having a negative emotional reaction.
Or in an imaginary scenario, the bike guy could have reported his complaint using the language and volume of his choice to an electronic system, which would then convey the message to me and my friends via low-voltage shocks in our belt devices which would alert us to move. Assuming we had agreed in advance to this system, the complaint would then be resolved with no hard feelings.
In every scenario, if you asked everyone involved about the problem, they would agree the proper solution was for my group to move aside. The difference is in how the complaint is delivered and received.
On a larger scale, this pattern – person complains, receiver of complaint gets angry, both are convinced they are in the right and the other person should remedy the situation – can turn a small conflict into a raging fight within a community.
Henry poured all his spare time and energy into creating a community softball team. When Adam, one of the players, rudely complained about poor communication, Henry was apoplectic. After all his volunteer work, he didn’t deserve to be repaid with disrespect. Adam responded with more rudeness. Others on the team took sides. Henry expelled Adam from the team. Adam’s friends quit too. Henry wondered what the remaining players were saying about him behind his back. His former happy place had become a minefield.
How could this have gone differently?
Adam could have raised his issue more effectively by acknowledging how much work Henry was putting in, explaining the communication issue and its impact on the team, and proposing a solution – preferably one that didn’t require additional work from Henry.
And Henry could have vented privately to a friend about the rudeness, but considered the substance of what Adam was saying. He could have learned more about the problem and worked with Adam, or with other players, on a solution.
In my opinion, Henry has the greater obligation here, because he runs the team and has the power to make decisions. (As I’ve said before in this newsletter, I am pro-complaint in general, even if the complaint is not expressed in the nicest way. Allowing people to raise problems lets you understand and address them, which in the long run helps everyone.)
If you are the Henry in this situation – the person receiving the complaint and getting upset about it – it could help to insert a third party between you and the complainer. Henry is not wrong to be upset, and may need support. In this example, Henry could have asked one of the other players to get involved and help him and Adam settle the conflict. The third person can act as a buffer, absorbing the harsh feelings on both sides and communicating the substance of the problem.
You may also be asking – shouldn’t Adam be punished or disciplined in some way? He shouldn’t get away with rudeness. Again in my opinion, punishing people – kids or adults – for expressing themselves poorly is counterproductive. Most of us could express ourselves better. Strive to listen and respond to their words, not their tone.
That said, you don’t need to be trampled on. There are several ways you can address the tone, while separately handling the underlying issue. Back to Henry and Adam:
Henry could have said in the moment, “Adam, I understand you’re concerned about communication, but I’m finding the way you’re expressing it to be disrespectful,” and then propose a different way that Adam could communicate. For example, he could suggest that Adam write down his concerns in an email.
Henry could change the medium. Propose a conversation over burgers if things are getting heated on the field, or suggest a phone call if the email exchange is getting out of hand. (Try in-person if possible, or teleconference if you’re not in the same place. People are nicer face to face.)
Henry could just ignore the rudeness for now. In my experience, if you engage constructively and work with the complainer to solve the problem, they will realize at some point that they came at you with too much hostility, and will often apologize after the fact.
If you are the Adam in this situation, there are usually second chances, and often third and fourth ones. You can go back and try again to raise the issue.
If you agree that your tone was inappropriate, offer a simple apology and continue: “I’m sorry I was rude to you. I let my frustration get the better of me. What I should have said was…”
If you don’t agree, you don’t have to apologize, but can still refocus on the issue. “I know you felt what I said was rude. That wasn’t my intention, and I’d like to try again. What I was trying to say was…”
Homework for this month: When you feel angry at someone because of their tone, pause and think about the actual words they are saying. What are they trying to communicate? Is there anything you can engage with in that?
