"You will never speak to me that way again" -- Confrontational?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Ideally something should have been said to the guy before he left the office. Something like “Do not (speak to me that way…)” or “I will not tolerate (your speaking to me that way…)”

Phrasing it like “You will not…” is a tad aggressive, but as others have said, it is not beyond the bounds of professional behavior under those circumstances.

The issue of following the guy out of the room and saying it in the hall depends on how he left the room. Was the conversation implicitly agreed to be over, then he walked out of the room? Or did he hurl some insults and then storm out before the insultee had a chance to respond?

If the latter, then the insultee has every right to respond to the guy even if he chose to storm out into the hall.

If the former, I’d just wait on it.

I agree that phrasing it like “Please do not…” or “I do not appreciate…” is whiny and submissive, given the level of aggression of the guy who was swearing. Saying “Please do not…” is more appropriate for something like talking too loudly in your cubicle, not going on a swearing binge.

42

[QUOTE=Rilchiam]
I do not want to discuss what happened to LVGeo, whether or not she’s good at her job, whether or not her manager should have been angry before or after the statement, whether or not his actions were illegal, or any of that. I just want to know what the consensus is on the statement, “You will not speak to me in that way again.” IOW, would you have said it if someone cursed at you at work?
[/QUOTE]

Okay, having started to read the other thread (I stopped when it got sidetracked onto prosecution-worthy actions), I think a lot of people in this thread, including the OP, have done exactly what the OP said they didn’t want - discuss the statement in the context of events in the other thread.

So, taking the statement at face value - IMHO, it’s a confrontational statement, and one that has little teeth if you personally aren’t actually in a position to push for enforcement of the consequences. It especially doesn’t do a lot of good in a work setting if you’re saying it to anyone but an equal. If you are the subordinate saying it to a superior, it’s a threat to go over the other person’s head and damage them with their superiors (and anyone who’s been in a corporate setting will be familiar with “chain of command” issues). If you are actually the superior, it makes you look ineffective because (again with chain of command stuff) you are essentially admitting you can’t control the folks who work for you and you have to appeal to a higher authority. Sometimes the situation is so bad you can’t help but take drastic measures, but an immediate escalation is usually not the best course of action.

Now, in the particular case that prompted this OP - I don’t think the woman should have just sat there and accepted a strong of curses from her supervisor. I do think that waiting for him to cool off before trying to have a more rational discussion might have been better, although if he has a bug up his butt over her for whatever reason a confrontation requiring upper management intervention was probably inevitable.

However, I also recognize that it’s very easy to be levelheaded while I sit here and drink my coffee, since I’m not the one taken by surprise by an unexpected inappropriate outburst. Don’t we all have times when we wished we could have handled something differently?

FWIW, I have had people - specifically, a former boss - go off on me at work all out of proportion to the triggering event, in front of other people, so I have learnt the hard way how to cope with certain personality types in a way that I can live with, too. As with many things in life, YMMV.

43

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I think it’s rather ineffective when worded that way. It comes off as a command that you can’t enforce. The perp could simply say, “Yeah? Well fuck you, you worthless piece of shit” and you’ve gained nothing.
[/quote]
Which is why this kind of confrontation needs to be done in public, with witnesses. HR will want corroboration.

But it is true that you should not issue commands that you can’t enforce. If HR or your boss or the perp’s boss can’t or won’t do anything, then leave.

Regards,
Shodan

44

As others have alluded to, the phrase “You will never speak to me that way again” is (unless you were predicting the future) a threat. It has an unspoken “or else” part to it. “You will never speak to me again or else…” what?

“…or else I’ll go to the boss and complain”?
“…or else I’ll see to it that you’re fired”?
“…or else I’ll quit”?
“…or else I’ll kick your teeth in”?

What were you intending to do if the co-worker did speak to you that way again?

45

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
In a perfect world, you are spot on. The problem is, there are some folks out there who do not respect ‘societal mores’. That’s one reason that HR is there.

[/QUOTE]

This may be a bit off from addressing the OP, but actually this is not why HR is there. HR’s function is to advise management. Management’s job is to enforce whatever needs to be enforced to have a productive workplace. Sometimes HR needs to point out to management that something management was going to ignore (or address) can put the company at legal risk. However, it is not HR’s job to make people play nice in the sandbox. And yelling, even cursing, does not generally create a legal risk unless there are circumstances of ongoing bias based on race/gender/religion/other protected class associated with it.

To the OP, I think the words are fine “You will not speak to me like that again.” There may be some better words, like “We are going to keep this conversation strictly professional.” However, I don’t think pursuing someone to continue an argument can be done in a non-confrontational way. So if the antagonist left, those words need to be saved until the antagonist comes back.

46

In all my experience with HR, Shodan is correct—the first question to the OP of the other thread, asked by folks in the job of handling these types of issues, will be “Did you tell him you object to the type of treatment to which he subjected you?” In all cases of harrassment, I have always learned (and in turn, trained my staff) that ideally, you need to express to your co-worker in a firm manner that you do not accept his behavior towards you, and preferably in front of an audience. In cases of sexual harrassment, which this was NOT, the value in asserting yourself to the offender may be incalcuable, in that passivity may encourage further bad behavior. This would seem to me to be true in cases of harrassment in general.

In any case, I don’t see her response as particularly over-agressive, given the original offense. And one is often struck dumb at first when faced with that kind of verbal abuse; how often do we all talk about “what we WISH we’d said at the time” in many challenge situations? I see nothing wrong in her follow-up trip to the offender once she got her initial shocked reaction behind her. HR will surely (or did, surely) ask her if she did something along these lines, anyway.

47

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Which is why this kind of confrontation needs to be done in public, with witnesses. HR will want corroboration.

But it is true that you should not issue commands that you can’t enforce. If HR or your boss or the perp’s boss can’t or won’t do anything, then leave.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Well, the way I look at it, with the way this was worded, it wouldn’t matter if the command was issued by a 90 lb. weakling or King Kong; you can’t stop someone from verbally going off on you, no matter who’s looking. If the perp is pissed off and in the Cuckoo Zone, he’ll blow a gasket no matter who’s watching.

I have been on the receiving end of a verbal-rant-gone-physical, and I definitely would have sought both police and management’s protection in this particular case.

48

“defensive” generally means something else, but I understand your point. If someone speaks innappropriately to you and you respond with “you wills..” and “don’t evers..” you might as well say “CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!” at which point it will now be “on”.

I assume your ultimate goal is to have a working professional relationship. The way to respond to that kind of behavior is to simply tell them it’s not appreciated. If it continues and the person shows no interest in coming to a resolution, then you escalate it with your manager.

In fact, it is often better to not respond immediately when someone is acting like a jerk. You can always come back later when everyone has calmed down.

[QUOTE=Harriet the Spry]
This may be a bit off from addressing the OP, but actually this is not why HR is there. HR’s function is to advise management. Management’s job is to enforce whatever needs to be enforced to have a productive workplace.
[/QUOTE]

Most of the time HR has no real power in an organization. I can complain to HR about someone but ultimately the power in my group comes from the senior management above me who has ultimate say in who gets hired, fired and promoted. Of course, if someone is constantly in trouble with HR, their manager will hear about it and it will affect their career, but not necessarily.

49

[QUOTE=Harriet the Spry]
This may be a bit off from addressing the OP, but actually this is not why HR is there.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean that this was HR’s main function. Goodness knows they have enough paperwork to do. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m considering it from the standpoint of HR wanting to keep people from escalating a situation to the point of violence, not from the standpoint of ‘making people play nice’. Wouldn’t HR have an interest in that?

50

[QUOTE=Rilchiam]
I said I wouldn’t post again in that thread, but I’m honestly curious, and I’d like to open a discussion in a separate forum.

So a co-worker gets angry, curses at you, and exits your office. You didn’t reply before he left because you were stunned, but a moment later, you follow him and state, “You will not speak to me in that way again.” Now, some people claim that this was a challenge, especially since she followed him in order to say it, and that he was justified in taking up the challenge, since the statement is apparently just as out of line as the cursing and insult.

I don’t. I think that was a perfectly reasonable response to being cursed at and personally insulted, one that should leave no room for argument. It’s how I would respond, in fact. No matter what someone’s problem is with me, they have no right to get personal in a professional setting. I think it’s also what the person who cursed would be told by their superiors anyway – “Don’t talk to her, or anyone, that way” – so why shouldn’t she have said it? His reaction just seemed to me to be an acting out of the response, “I can and I will.” And that’s not on, IMO.

I do not want to discuss what happened to LVGeo, whether or not she’s good at her job, whether or not her manager should have been angry before or after the statement, whether or not his actions were illegal, or any of that. I just want to know what the consensus is on the statement, “You will not speak to me in that way again.” IOW, would you have said it if someone cursed at you at work?
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. She was very much within her rights to say that.

51

A few memes I find interesting emerging in this thread

  1. The need to go to police over a verbal assault, once said assault is over. Is a one time verbal berating really so bad as to need police intervention? I would never dream of going to the police, or in fact any position of authority, over a verbal “assault” unless said assault included specific threats, or was indicative of issues that needed to be sorted out in a work setting (in which case it would be my manager that would help me sort it out)
  2. The idea that asserting rights is more important than reaching a resolution (which happily has seen many counter-arguements). If you are verbally assaulted are you within your rights to assault back - yes absolutely, but in the majority of cases it doesn’t do anything at all to resolve the situation. The times that I have been in an arguement and “asserted my rights” by matching agression with agression it is never about winning the specific arguement, but rather about gaining the respect of the other party, establishing myself as an equal. The words themselves are not important, but rather demonstrating that I am not cowed by them.
  3. The idea that in an unexpected work confrontation it is more important to prepare the ground for later, more drastic action in front of wittnesses than to reach a resolution - IMHO this is a very legalistic and unhelpful approach, and I wouldn’t want such a person on the team. (this is not to say that in a bad situation you shouldn’t make specific responses with a view to later action, or that you shouldn’t have wittnesses, but simply that it need not be your first thought)
52

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
I didn’t mean that this was HR’s main function. Goodness knows they have enough paperwork to do. :stuck_out_tongue:

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I need to get back to designing employee appreciation day t-shirts in your least favorite color :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]

I’m considering it from the standpoint of HR wanting to keep people from escalating a situation to the point of violence, not from the standpoint of ‘making people play nice’. Wouldn’t HR have an interest in that?
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, avoiding violence in the workplace is something HR cares about. However, it is the kind of thing management has to own, set the zero tolerance culture of, and fire the problem cases to make happen. I didn’t see anything in the OP (though I didn’t read the original thread) to indicate that this was a situation that couldn’t be handled by management with a clue and some cjnes. Management at the appropriate level can say “You will never speak to someone in this office like that again, or you will lose your job” and mean it. Or management can say “you two need to work it out, or you both lose your jobs,” and mean that. HR’s role is more likely helping management decide between the options.

53

[QUOTE=hr_realist]
<snip>
2) The idea that asserting rights is more important than reaching a resolution (which happily has seen many counter-arguements). If you are verbally assaulted are you within your rights to assault back - yes absolutely, but in the majority of cases it doesn’t do anything at all to resolve the situation. The times that I have been in an arguement and “asserted my rights” by matching agression with agression it is never about winning the specific arguement, but rather about gaining the respect of the other party, establishing myself as an equal. The words themselves are not important, but rather demonstrating that I am not cowed by them.<snip>
[/QUOTE]

I agree that matching aggression with aggression is not usually productive, but I think in this case the appropriate response was to immediately, with no equivocation, tell the offender that he was waaaaaay over the line. I’m imagining other scenarios, where the offended party goes to him later and has a rational, calm discussion, and I don’t know that that would be as effective. They have a nice little chat, he says he’s sorry, he got a little out of line, and next time he’s mad, he does exactly the same thing or worse because he got away with it the first time.

This is really a hard call, you know. I know that calling someone on their aggression is usually the right thing to do, for the reason stated earlier in the thread (bullies need to get called on their bullying or they just escalate it), but is better to be done immediately or after a cooling-off period for both parties to reduce risk of escalation?

54

[QUOTE=Harriet the Spry]
However, it is the kind of thing management has to own, set the zero tolerance culture of, and fire the problem cases to make happen. I didn’t see anything in the OP (though I didn’t read the original thread) to indicate that this was a situation that couldn’t be handled by management with a clue and some cjnes. Management at the appropriate level can say “You will never speak to someone in this office like that again, or you will lose your job” and mean it. Or management can say “you two need to work it out, or you both lose your jobs,” and mean that. HR’s role is more likely helping management decide between the options.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, and agreed. On looking back over my comments, I think I failed to make a distinction between “things people can work out between themselves” and “things which need intervention”. Absolutely, if one employee feels overwhelmed by another, the first place to go to is the immediate supervisor. If that doesn’t fix the problem, take it up the chain.

55

[QUOTE=featherlou]
I agree that matching aggression with aggression is not usually productive, but I think in this case the appropriate response was to immediately, with no equivocation, tell the offender that he was waaaaaay over the line. I’m imagining other scenarios, where the offended party goes to him later and has a rational, calm discussion, and I don’t know that that would be as effective. They have a nice little chat, he says he’s sorry, he got a little out of line, and next time he’s mad, he does exactly the same thing or worse because he got away with it the first time.

This is really a hard call, you know. I know that calling someone on their aggression is usually the right thing to do, for the reason stated earlier in the thread (bullies need to get called on their bullying or they just escalate it), but is better to be done immediately or after a cooling-off period for both parties to reduce risk of escalation?
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you in theory, but as the OP laid it out, this was more than just someone verbally going off. It was a level of verbal assault, including the cornering after the initial exchange and all the rest of the intimidation (as opposed to simple verbal frustration), that would have indicated (to me anyway) that physical assault was just a blown gasket away. I’m certain that if someone spoke to me the way the perp spoke to the OP, I would ask that he be removed from the team (or from the workplace entirely) or I’d be looking for another job. After all, this guy has been riding her ass for a while. I doubt the situation would improve, nor would I be interested in making nice with this particular employee in the future.

For the usual brand of workplace blown gasketosity, I agree that mediation and a review of office conduct would probably be in order. But this guy went off into an entirely different level of aggression. If I was the boss, he’d be gone.

56

Add my vote to Kalhoun and the other folks who suggest “I” statements instead of “you” demands/orders. Along the lines of “I will not allow people to speak to me in that manner. [Please] leave and return when you can speak civilly/professionally.”

I also disagree with the folks who criticize the use of words like “please” as too weak and/or submissive. IMO, in a work situation, there is rarely harm in being the more professional, polite, respectful party to a dispute. And there is no shame in doing what it takes to defuse an antagonistic situation - provided it can be accomplished at no significant loss to yourself.

IMO, someone ordering what they will or will not allow another to do is more concerned with their ego than professional workplace behavior.

57

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well, the way I look at it, with the way this was worded, it wouldn’t matter if the command was issued by a 90 lb. weakling or King Kong; you can’t stop someone from verbally going off on you, no matter who’s looking. If the perp is pissed off and in the Cuckoo Zone, he’ll blow a gasket no matter who’s watching.

[/QUOTE]
You can’t stop that rant, but witnesses help you get HR to stop future ones. Because, as you mention -

I agree, and therefore need witnesses to prove that the behavior occured in such a way as to justify termination.

IYSWIM. It is much more difficult to deal with a “he said she said”. Blowing your stack in front of ten witnesses is rather more clear cut. Plus it makes the person on the receiving end of the rant look much better. They get a chance to be calm and rational in the face of a screaming tantrum. Believability plus.

Regards,
Shodan

58

Since we all know what we are talking about, let’s cut to the chase (British for not farting around)

While I am wary of models, this looks like Eric Berne’s Parent - Adult - Child view of psychology - at first the marine starts acting like an angry ‘parent’ and then LV, from the safety of the corridoor gives him a ‘parent -> child’ blast, clacks off down to what she thinks is safe territory and then gets cornered.

Personally I would have not got in conflict with her in the first place, I would have said ‘Lady I don’t like your attitude - but I don’t want to sack you’.

I also suspect that there is a lot more to this story than LV knows, my instinct is that a sloppy lab is worried - and they see a way out - imposing marine discipline.

59

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Since we all know what we are talking about, let’s cut to the chase (British for not farting around)

While I am wary of models, this looks like Eric Berne’s Parent - Adult - Child view of psychology - at first the marine starts acting like an angry ‘parent’ and then LV, from the safety of the corridoor gives him a ‘parent -> child’ blast, clacks off down to what she thinks is safe territory and then gets cornered.

Personally I would have not got in conflict with her in the first place, I would have said ‘Lady I don’t like your attitude - but I don’t want to sack you’.

I also suspect that there is a lot more to this story than LV knows, my instinct is that a sloppy lab is worried - and they see a way out - imposing marine discipline.
[/QUOTE]

You’re not “cutting to the chase” (and yes, we know what that slang means); you’re going directly to the discussion of LV’s personal situation, which the OP of this thread has asked us not to do. This is an abstract discussion based on a real situation, not a factual discussion of the real situation itself. There already is a four-page discussion of the actual events for you to opine on.

60

  1. What featherlou said.

  2. Since when is “cut to the chase” a British term? It’s a Hollywood term. Skip ahead to the (car) chase, the showdown, the big clinch, the final conflict of the story.

  3. What featherlou said again. You have a whole other thread to insult LV in. What baffles me is why you’re so determined to do so at all.