was it unprofessional to say I was angry?

by Alison Green on June 26, 2024

A reader writes:

This year, I was put in a difficult position by my HR representative. My work requires a licensing process with the state, and I’ve moved to a new role whose laws regarding those licenses have recently been updated. Despite having conversations with my HR about these changes and working to navigate them, my HR rep filed the wrong paperwork for me and insisted that I was flaunting compliance by not submitting the outdated paperwork that was provided and contacting the wrong people for required letters of evidence. This error was really stressful to me — not only was my HR emailing me that I could lose my job if I didn’t come through with the license, but argued that the rejections from the state were my fault, CC’ing my manager.

At one point, I spelled out the correct process to the HR representative, citing the state guidelines provided to us both, and she argued that I was essentially dragging my feet on doing what was necessary, and that she would not hesitate to post my job as open to hire someone who would meet the correct guidelines.

I eventually followed the state’s correct process against my HR’s guidance, only to discover that I had been misinformed by my HR over months when everything fell back into place and my license was quickly approved. When I contacted HR again in my long email chain with my supervisor, I said as kindly as I could that I was angry that my HR had not only called me out for not doing due diligence, but had not done their own, and had threatened my position over what was their own mistake.

Which brings me to my question: When my supervisor talked to me recently for an annual review, he suggested it was unprofessional to state that I was angry about how this had shaken out. I was pretty shocked to hear this — I had in no way been unkind or hostile, had limited this expression to a statement in one brief email wrapping up the issue, and my HR had been without question in the wrong with how they handled my situation.

Is it always unprofessional to say you’re angry in a business situation? Am I off the mark here?

Yeah, anger at work is … tricky.

There are lots of times when anger at work is justified.

But there is very much an expectation in many parts of white-collar American work culture that you will not declare yourself “angry.” Instead, you are “concerned,” “alarmed,” “surprised,” maybe “taken aback.” (I use “concerned” in scripts here a lot. It gets the point across without flouting that cultural convention.)

Some of that’s because part of white-collar professionalism is supposed to be not taking things personally. Some of it’s because anger is a fairly aggressive, even threatening, emotion to declare. You’re expected to be more even-keeled in how you express yourself.

Is this a sort of fake gentility? Sure — especially because not announcing your anger doesn’t mean you won’t actually be angry. But it’s a cultural convention in many workplaces.

To be clear, your HR person was an ass. Not only did she continually get the process wrong, but she threatened your job?! (Saying she “would not hesitate” to post your job and replace you?! Does she even have the authority to decide that on her own? I doubt it, not that that’s the point.) Your anger is warranted. She owes you an apology — and more than that, someone above her needs to look into what happened and whether it’s part of a pattern of incompetence from this colleague.

But yeah, you violated a cultural expectation that you’ll be more buttoned-up about it.

I can’t in good faith write about this topic without acknowledging that some managers traffic in anger pretty regularly. However, that’s bad management, and it’s unprofessional of them too.

There are, of course, industries where this doesn’t apply. But I’m guessing you might not be in one of them, based on your manager’s feedback.

You may also like:
{ 327 comments }

{ 327 comments… read them below }

  1. Lab Boss*

    I think Alison’s advice is especially true for e-mail, where things being in writing seem to make them more “official.” I’ve absolutely said “I’m so angry at so-and-so” in a one-on-one discussion with somebody, but wouldn’t be so direct in an e-mail.

    That said, you can still make sure people know how you feel. My own boss recently hit someone with a “This is below the acceptable standards I expect, and that’s been a recurring issue from [team]. Can you explain why that is?” Clearly blazingly angry, but it passed completely without push-back, because it fit the jargon.

    1. Lea*

      Yeah you can make anger quite clear using all the normal ‘professional’ words in fact it’s kind of an art form.

      The hr person threatening her job was completely not ok and I would probably have dropped frustrated and if I was really really anger called them
      And / or the process ‘unprofessional’

      Bc it absolutely was

      1. Velawciraptor*

        “extraordinarily frustrated and deeply disturbed by HR rep’s unprofesssionalism, which extended to threatening my job over their mistake” could have expressed the anger in “acceptable” language. LW, I’m sorry you went through this.

        1. Observer*

          And really, that’s pretty accurate, too.

          I really get why the LW would not want to soft pedal what happened – I think I would be livid. But this formulation keeps the focus where it needs to be – on the incredibly inappropriate behavior of HR.

        2. Frumpenberger*

          +1 to “frustrated” and “concerned”. Frustrated at the impact to you, your work stability, I’m guessing clients too? And concerned that HR is not up-to-speed on required documentation that is a core part of their business practices.

    2. Msd*

      I would say “I’m upset that my job was threatened because HR was not aware of current licensing requirements”.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Even then, IMO you’re “concerned” that your job was threatened – because “upset” is a personal emotion. We don’t have those in the workworld :( Concerned about a business practice, that’s all.

        1. Anonym*

          “Gravely concerned,” or some other modifier, might also help convey the gravity of it.

          1. Cordelia*

            yes I think I would be “extremely concerned”. I might “have major concerns about the way this has been handled”.

          2. 1LFTW*

            Yeah, it *should* be a manner of grave concern to everyone involved that HR dropped the ball so completely on a licensing and compliance issue, and then handled the fallout so unprofessionally.

        2. Quill*

          “Deeply concerned” aka: someone is going beyond not doing their job and into potential legal / regulatory problems, and it is NOT me.

        4. Ellie*

          I’d have used upset too. It’s an emotion, sure, but not an aggressive one. I can’t see many people taking offence to it.

          I don’t know, I feel that OP should probably have used more professional language, but also that bringing it up in their performance review was heavy-handed, and feels somewhat like retaliation. I mean, OP had a right to be angry. Their livelihood was being threatened. Unless there’s been other issues, I’d say the manager was wrong to bring it up in this way. Did they have any suggestions as to how it should have been handled?

      2. Bear Expert*

        I present as a woman in a male dominated space and industry. I have had decades to work on never, ever admitting to Having An Emotion. Bill can throw whiteboard markers, slam doors and swear and be a respected professional, (he’s just passionate) but I cannot be “upset” without career damage. I very much avoid putting strong feeling words into writing or speech that aren’t positive.

        I can be disappointed. I can be surprised. I can be concerned. That’s about the limit. The example from Lab Boss is the approach that can be used here. Clearly state facts in an order that shows the problem as an issue of the counterparty’s lack of doing their job. Its not about your feelings, its about their job performance. You don’t need a hug, you need competence.

        It can suck, because Bill is obviously having emotions that are affecting his work and the work of those around him, and emotions are human and happen and its very silly to pretend that they don’t and aren’t important to how we all work together. But this is the game.

        1. wickyj*

          I feel this deeply! Also a woman in a male-dominated industry, where my emotions have been examined and criticized semi-regularly. By way of example, a literal quote, from the top of a meeting I was running: me: “our goal of this meeting is to come to an agreement on scope and cost for the project” male colleague response: “you’re getting kind of emotional about this”. My statement wasn’t remotely “emotional”, it could hardly have been more even keeled, because I was actually very neutral about the meeting. He tried to use “emotion” to be dismissive.

          All that is to say, depending on demographics, showing any emotion can really undermine you, even if it’s reasonable. Allison’s suggestion of using the word “concerned” is a good one, even if it understates how you feel. I wouldn’t use the word “upset” – in my experience, that makes it very easy for some to dismiss you as being emotional.

          1. Ellie*

            I’m sorry that happened to you. As another woman in a male dominated industry, I use the term upset. People who are going to be dismissive are generally going to do it anyway, and I’ve long ceased to give a shit what they think.

        2. singularity*

          Bear Expert, this is the first thing I thought of. Is the LW female presenting? Is the boss male and is this a gendered industry?

          I’m a high school teacher, which is female dominated and I’m also female. However, most of the administrators and evaluators (on my campus) are male and so are the upper level district office folks. I would be considered unprofessional if I said I was angry in an email to someone, even if they were a colleague of mine (not in a supervisory position). Even if it was well deserved!

          I have to be in control of my emotions, and coming across as someone who can’t handle it would make them question whether or not I can be objective and do my job while modeling appropriate behavior for teenagers. It can be extremely frustrating, especially when parents or other adults outside of the campus act absolutely atrociously.

          I’ve had parents cuss me out and call me awful names over basic misunderstandings, both male and female. I can’t react in anger to them, no matter how awful they are. It’s all part of the politics of teaching.

        3. Maglev to Crazytown*

          OMG this. I had this same exact thought reading it. it is acceptable for men to me angry, threatening and screaming at women coworkers, throwing office equipment at women (how dare they “make HIM mad”), punching holes in doors and walls. Seen all of this, multiple times over the decades, from men who are just shrugged off as being “strong passionate leaders.”

          But as a woman, the second you show any drop of emotion, you are a histrionic bitch. Totally complete double standards.

          1. Gumby*

            Well, it’s because women are widely known to be “hormonal” whereas testosterone isn’t a hormone at all…

            1. Maglev to Crazytown*

              I am in a technical/engineering field, and I got terminated for “culture fit” after a maleamager with a reputation for anger and bullying threatened myself and my direct report, and I filed a complaint to HR.

              During the time I was unemployed, I had a doctor appointment with one of my long-standing doctors who had just switched affiliations with two major hospital systems. When I told her my story, she told me the reason she switched was when a male director was harassing her and her female staff, and it escalated to him throwing a laptop at her in a meeting.

              So that is two different fields, and same exact shit that men are being allowed to routinely get away with, while women are expected to either suffer quietly or be called “unprofessional.”

            3. Jo Mitch*

              I heard the term testosterical – think sums up male anger in relation to their hormones !

        4. Nameless*

          not going to link to avoid moderation, but playwrite Claire Willet said on Twitter years ago: “honestly the best marketing scheme in history is men successfully getting away with calling women the “more emotional” gender for like, EONS, because they’ve successfully rebranded anger as Not An Emotion” and i think about that A LOT

          1. Anonomatopoeia*

            But really, what they’ve rebranded is WHITE MALE anger as not an emotion. Black men usually don’t get to be angry either, because obviously that would probably mean they were going to go home and [I don’t even want to write words about neighborhoods, gun violence, assorted other generational trauma topics that would be assumed to be just milliseconds from showing up on the workroom floor]. It’s gross and I hate it.

            (Also, it’s just so annoying to me not to be allowed to just name the feeling in order to deal with the feeling. To say no, this decision makes me feel angry, and I can do my work and continue along the path we are on while I feel that way, but right now I’m not ready to show up at the celebratory barbecue. Like, humans have feelings, and it’s not weirder to sometimes be angry than it is to sometimes have periods or sometimes have migraines or sometimes have colon cancer that requires invasive and maybe ugly treatment.)

      3. MotherofaPickle*

        I would say, “I am *furious* that my job was threatened by Ms X and extremely concerned that HR was not aware of current licensing requirements, even though I explicitly informed them of proper procedure Y times (see attachments)” in the email to Ms X’s supervisor and the supervisor’s supervisor. Because I get petty when the people threatening my livelihood are incompetent.

        1. Ellie*

          The thing is, you don’t know what else might have been going on in that admin’s life. Obviously this was a massive mistake, but there’s a small chance that she was going through something dreadful, or she was being driven to it by her boss, or that the change in rules really was confusing, or some other thing that influenced how this was handled. I might be being naive, but I feel that it’s usually better to give someone the benefit of the doubt, if you can afford to, especially at work. Furious implies that you want something to happen (i.e. her job is now at stake). Maybe it should be, but that’s not your call. I prefer using terms like ‘frustrated’, ‘upset’, ‘worried’, etc. because it keeps the onus on the impact to me and my feelings, and gives them an opportunity to acknowledge that I was harmed, and correct what happened. If they double-down then at least you know where you stand.

          I still think OP’s supervisor should have extended them more grace though. Most people would get angry if someone outside their chain of command was threatening to fire them.

          1. whimbrel*

            I think the actions suggested by comment OP would be over the line – but LW’s situation went on for weeks if not months despite their attempts to correct it. I don’t think ‘going through something dreadful’ is an excuse for HR person to not bother to fact check licensing requirements (especially after LW had originally communicated that there were going to be changes related to the new regulations), then accuse LW of noncompliance, and then finally tell them ‘you’re doing this wrong on purpose and I’ll have your job for it’.

          2. ThatOtherClare*

            I am ALL for offering people grace. I’d say that’s one of my main comment themes on this site. But let’s be clear. Threatening someone’s job for trying to fill out some forms in a new way isn’t a ‘mistake’ that could be brought on by a bereavement in the family or some such. It’s malice. Pure and simple.

    3. Crooked Bird*

      Essentially it’s a matter of letting anger be the subtext but never the text, right? Because most people do know how to read subtext, and they look for it especially in loaded situation, so if you make anger the text they’ll read an even stronger subtext into it and possibly become alarmed.

      I remember emailing my managing editor and signaling to him a whole host of problems that the copy editor had introduced(!!) into my manuscript, and adding that due to some personal life circumstances he knew about (I was a week out from giving birth) “my store of patience is currently much reduced.” I then asked what I should do with the edit and he gave me permission to throw it out. I suppose I veered closer to “I’m angry” in that one than in the example you gave, by citing actual emotions, but it’s still on this side of the line of actually coming out and saying it. It does feel like a big red button one hesitates to push.

      Like I feel like I’m seeing in the subtext of Allison’s post… that is kind of hypocritical and unfair. But it’s there in the culture and it is what it is.

      1. KaciHall*

        and this is why it sucks being autistic in the professional world. we can’t just say what we mean, we have to use subtext – and I am occasionally terrible at noticing subtext. so my anxiety just ramps up if I get an email where I think there’s subtext but I’m not sure and inevitably imposter syndrome takes over and convinces me I’m getting fired.

        I’ve mostly learned to ignore that voice in my head and ask people to use plain language if I’m getting confused about something. On the bright side, we’ve discovered I make the most thorough guides for our clients because I err on the side of too much plainly stated information.

        1. Lydia*

          All of this dancing around is just plain exhausting. I get why it’s a thing, but none of the suggested language really gets at what a person is truly feeling, does it? I’m not concerned; I’m angry. I’m not alarmed; I’m angry. I can be frustrated AND angry. I can be surprised at the lack of professionalism AND angry my job was threatened. Anger can be a useful emotion and it’s bonkers the manager is more focused on the word the LW used and not the reason they felt that way.

    4. Heffalump*

      It’s also a truism that things can land differently in email because you don’t have body language and tone of voice.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        This is an important point. The issue here, if there is one, is primarily that OP put this in writing. I am 10x more careful with how I write something than how I say it, because you’re missing several key points of communication when you exchange emails and I have been burned before by a misinterpretation.

    5. Awkwardness*

      I think Alison’s advice is especially true for e-mail, where things being in writing seem to make them more “official.” I’ve absolutely said “I’m so angry at so-and-so” in a one-on-one discussion with somebody, but wouldn’t be so direct in an e-mail.

      This is a good point. When reading the answer I could not pinpoint why I was in disagreement, but your comment is the missing piece.
      I have said too that I was angry – about a concerning lack of interest after repeated presentations that were using too much of my time or about the reaction of a co-worker. But in writing I am “irritated”, “confused” or “concerned”. Maybe a situation is “frustrating”, but not me.

    6. Smithy*

      I do think to that point of both using business jargon as well as saying things vs writing things – I think there are different norms for what you can say “in team” vs “cross team”.

      At work being upset, frustrated or disappointed with a process, system or result can all work in professional language. But being upset with a team or individual person usually reads as less professional overall. While it’s not uncommon to be upset with another team, there’s very often the professional norm to acknowledge there may be things going on that you’re unaware of that led to a person or team doing something that ultimately wasn’t appropriate, ideal or professional. Like, this HR person may have been reacting that way under the direction of the Legal team. And so the bigger issue at hand isn’t necessarily HR, but with Legal and how they’re working with HR around licensure.

      In no way am I saying that’s what’s going on here – however, I think that for reasons like that hypothetical, it’s more so the professional courtesy cross team to address ways of working or systems.

    7. Lab Snep*

      I use “I have a concern (that the llama containment device has a contamination problem/the Hemolyzer 9000 is not hemolyzing samples)” a lot.

      One day a coworker really did piss me off and I used angry words and was rightly told not to say I’m angry or call people asses.(“I’m really mad, Bertrand is being an ass”)

      I softened it to “Bertrand is dismissing my concerns and is refusing to xyz, which needs to be done or we will have llamas running around and spitting on everyone, and Gertrude is allergic to llamas”.

      It’s sometimes hard for me because of my neurodivergence and people take advantage of it until I am at wits end, but the good thing about this job is that instead of being punished, I am coached and it has made me a more patient person.

      Even if I’m angry.

    8. porridge fan*

      The way I see it, the focus is shifted from the emotional state that the speaker is in (“I’m angry”) to the circumstances that made them feel that way (“this work is once again below acceptable standards, please explain” or “the way HR-person handled my paperwork nearly caused grave damage to my reputation and livelihood”)

      That change of focus is a better fit for the conventions of business language (however we feel about those), and also presents something tangible that can be responded to. People might not be happy about being sent such a message, but at least they’re not being backed into a metaphorical corner.

  2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    You are “dismayed” that this is the case.

    I find it’s ok to state emotions such as being frustrated, without actually “acting out” the emotion as such (not that I think OP was, just stating in the abstract).

    In your position I would have taken it to your manager sooner (HR are requiring this, but [“as you know”, if the manager would know] those regulations changed last year and this is the new legislation… etc).

      1. Anne Shirley Blythe*

        Same. All I kept thinking was, why was the HR person allowed to go off the rails like this?

        1. Shoot another shot, try to stop the feeling*

          In my company, the HR team is very, very good at 1. being incompetent 2. making sure no one above them gets wind of that incompetence. It’s definitely possible :/

          1. Laura LL*

            But in this situation it was all in writing. I would have cced my boss, her boss, and the HR rep’s boss and possibly the head of HR and head of my area of the c company as if this kept happening (I’d start with my boss and HR rep’s boss and if that doesn’t fix it, go from there).

      2. Laura LL*

        exactly! This is a time where a manager absolutely should have stepped in. IT’s weird to me that any HR person thinks they can threaten someone’s job, it’s never HR’s decision (or at least not solely HR’s decision) to hire or fire someone.

      3. Coverage Associate*

        Most of my managers don’t even read emails where they’re cc’d. Maybe they would ask me what was going on if it was filling their inbox, but unless they got an email: “Hi manager. Please see below re HR not understanding the new license process,” they would figure I was handling it.

      1. Bumblebee*

        I have definitely been criticized for seeming frustrated, so that’s not an option I default to in higher ed. It’s considered unprofessional, at least to the people I have reported to. They have, as a group, tended to overvalue (in my opinion) endless positivity.

        1. Bruce*

          My son is a teacher, he has been reprimanded for _once_ expressing anger at a student who was intentionally disrupting his class. Of course the standards are variable for which staff are allowed to express anger. Don’t want to delve into it more, ugh!

        2. Tired and burned out*

          I just had a very long talk with my HR department about my visible frustration with the relentless positivity at my higher ed. job. Instead of discussing how we can improve anything let’s break into small groups to discuss what we are doing well and report back to the larger group. We always run out of time to discuss anything else. Every two weeks.

          1. Recovering the satellites*

            Every 2 weeks, poor you. That type of toxic positivity makes me gag.

            It’s bullying at best, victim shaming at worst (in some contexts), and generally demonstrative of management’s inability to look in a mirror.

      2. Carol the happy*

        Deeply concerned at the negative repercussions to those of us who have ___________ education and experience.

        Alarmed at the ongoing lack of state licensure law requirements and knowledge.

        Recommend that HR take an outside course in “Llama Grooming Licensure Jurisprudence”, to ensure that this does not continue happening.

        1. Lea*

          Ooh I love the suggestion that hr complete more training in this area ‘as they seem to be lacking knowledge of the process they are overseeing’

      3. Sloanicota*

        Even frustrated is less good than “concerned.” To be clear, this is a bad state of affairs and I feel like is an offshoot of repressed WASP culture that probably shouldn’t be a business norm, but it is in fact a business norm in my experience, often unstated.

    4. toolegittoresign*

      I was also going to suggest the use of the word “frustrated.” It’s my go-to stand in for anger. Because, at work, usually I am angry because of frustration.

    5. History Nerd*

      “Frustrated” is a good one but still needs to be used a bit carefully, imo. I’ve used it in meetings after asking for, but not getting, the same thing repeatedly for several years – with hesitation, a sigh and as even a tone as I could muster. It did the trick in that instance, but I would probably have used a different word in an email. As someone else said above, the lack of tone in an email means it can come across a lot more harsh.

      1. yadah*

        I think frustrated/frustrating works well when used properly because it can describe a situation or emotion as being arduous without inherently evoking the idea of someone being reactive/angry, and it’s fairly easy to soften. “Regularly asking for timesheets is a little frustrating at times” vs. “Regularly asking for timesheets is a little angering at times”

        And like, Traffic, politics, the criminal justice system can be frustrating, but also – my hair can be frustrating, sudoku can be frustrating, the weather can be frustrating etc etc.
        It can be used to describe such a wide range of unhappy emotions from “deeply disturbed” to “ready to lose my mind” to “roll my eyes” to “bemused grunting”

        And describing a situation as frustrating comes across more like “this process has been challenging for multiple people involved and it’s having negative repercussions on morale” instead of the subtext being “If Brenda sends me one more email I’m going to throw my laptop out the window”

    6. Maglev to Crazytown*

      Working in a male dominated industry for 20+ years, it is okay for men to throw chairs and punch holes in walls. And maybe after the 6th time they may get sent for a 1 hr anger management seminar. But it is never okay for a women to even suggest any shred of emotion.

      As someone who has managed field teams under physically demanding conditions and significant ambient stressors, I would much rather someone cool down by telling me how they are feeling rather than containing that and inadvertently getting themselves or another coworker hurt (due to being distracted).

      1. Jayne*

        Not to supplant Guest’s viewpoint, which may be different from my own, but I can see toxic positivity in how the manager handled the situation. Rather than the HR person get in trouble for being incompetent and threatening the OP’s job, the focus is on reprimanding the OP for expressing a natural emotion. So it is not the HR person’s actions that are punished, it is OP’s reaction. It shows toxic positivity and lack of acknowledgement that the situation is HR’s fault and no apology or repercussions (that we know of) for actions rather than the OP’s words.

        1. JSPA*

          i figured they were worried there was a risk of “anger” being spun into a threat (when the only actual threat came from HR, directed at the LW).

        2. lil falafel wrap*

          we don’t know that the HR person wasn’t reprimanded, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that even if frustrating situations, you’re expected to be professional at work. both can be true, there’s nothing toxic about that

      1. Minimal Pear*

        I think they’re saying they don’t like a) the toxic positivity that can be part of a culture where you can’t say you’re angry, and b) how HR behaved.

      1. Sloanicota*

        I mean, I see their point. You’re angry for good reason – someone threatened your job, that’s extremely personal – but you have to pretend you’re not angry and that in fact you’re just coolly professional. I’m not sure if it falls under toxic positivity exactly but it’s somewhere in the vicinity to me.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          I wouldn’t consider this “pretending you’re not angry”, though–I would consider this “keeping your head despite being justifiably angry”. Being angry doesn’t mean you have to lash out.

          1. Sloanicota*

            But the only thing OP is in trouble for is saying they are angry, which they *are,* and which you and I both agree is probably reasonable to be in this circumstance. Even all the advice here is “of course you’re justifiably pissed but you have to act like you’re not because that’s what professional means.”

            1. yadah*

              They’re not saying to not act like you’re pissed, they’re saying that there’s a professional way to convey you’re pissed.
              Because at work your personal feelings aren’t the priority (positive or negative) people are there to do a job- so expressing things like anger in a way that is less likely to elicit emotional reactions and prioritize actionable change or measurable impact is going to be more successful and more appropriate for work because it signals to everyone around you that you’re not expecting them to do extra emotional labour to manage your feelings about the situation and everyone is ready to be in problem-solving mode.

          2. Lenora Rose*

            But they didn’t lash out. The statement “I am angry” is not lashing out.

            While I understand the professional norm of not expressing it that way, I would go from being calmly angry to livid if that one small unprofessional statement on my part received more criticism than someone else’s much more extremely unprofessional behaviour of threatening my job based on not knowing or researching a basic part of their own job.

          3. ceiswyn*

            Being angry does not imply aggression. Anger, as an emotion, can take many forms, and in fact research has shown that it is primarily a response to (perceived) injustice and a motivator for social change.

            Anger and aggressive behaviour aren’t even that closely linked.

            …although obviously the world in general doesn’t know that, hence the need to tiptoe around admitting to experiencing the emotion appropriate to the situation.

            1. Seashell*

              Angry can run a wide gamut, and someone reading an email may not know whether you’re mildly peeved or at Incredible Hulk levels of anger. I would agree with the advice of avoiding that language in a work email.

      2. Despachito*

        If you CLAIM you are angry but do not ACT angry IS actually restraining your anger.

        I get what Alison says about the right jargon, but I see a HUGE difference between stating “I am angry” and actually acting angry (throwing things, yelling etc.).

        Given the situation (that the HR royally f…ed up and moreover was pretty aggressive about it), it is absurd that the boss sees the main problem in OP STATING that they are angry.

        1. Coverage Associate*

          Less in professional contexts, but I have definitely had my calmly expressed emotions dismissed, no matter how serious my actual words. The thinking seems to be, “She can’t really be angry, because she’s not acting upset.” I think it’s more of women not just being able to express anything more than pleasant emotion. Sometimes it’s even bad to express too much positive emotion at work. Comes across as “silly.”

      3. JSPA*

        “failing to restrain anger” is usually referring to outbursts, actions, tone of voice, threats, gestures, slamming doors, cussing under one’s breath. Not referring to oneself as, at some point in the process, having felt anger.

        To be clear, “stay away from that self- characterization” is reasonable advice, even in a culture that doesn’t enforce positivity. But given all the people who (still) get away with throwing staplers at the wall, or slamming a hall’s worth of doors, let’s not weaken the weight of “failing to restrain anger.”

      4. Moira's Rose's Garden*

        Definitely not. The email was something a good manager should address – in a “I understand the provocation, but this way of handling it has negative consequence I’m sure you didn’t intend, let’s talk about how to head off this kind of thing in the future” kind of way. But treating writing the word “angry” as deserving of mention, but not acknowledging all the unprofessionalism that lead to OP feeling angry, might be a symptom of toxic positivity. Could also be a way of reframing everything to make OP the problem, if the manager were (HR) conflict avoidant or other kinds of weird office politics are in play.

    4. Kella*

      The white-collar culture of never outwardly expressing big emotions is a very different thing from toxic positivity. OP’s manager didn’t criticize OP for being negative, or for not letting the issue go. The issue was specifically expressing anger by using the words “I am angry” rather than following the social norms around how to communicate anger with phrases like “I am deeply concerned” etc.

      I don’t like that this is the professional norm. I think it’s silly and I dislike that our culture discourages being honest or present with your emotions. But it’s possible to follow those norms without being strictly limited to a “positive mindset.” It’s still possible to express criticism and displeasure.

  4. Pastor Petty Labelle*

    OP, you weren’t wrong to have the emotions. HR was wildly out of line. Threatening your job for not kowtowing to their wrong answers? You also weren’t wrong to take it personally since it was directed at you and your livelihood.

    Having said that, its how you deal with the emotions you have that matter. I think very matter of factly stating, X happened with HR, I did Y instead and got my license immediately. Please have an HR supervisor review the procedures to ensure this does not happen again.

    It conveys the same message of this person royally f’d up, but it takes your emotions out of it. Which makes the conversation about the f’ up, not your emotions. You want everyone fixing the problem, not policing your emotions.

    1. Spencer Hastings*

      This. Anger is subjective — if I’m angry, all that proves is that I’m angry. I could just be angry over nothing, or it could be because someone actually did something wrong. “This information was incorrect and caused such-and-such problems” is a much better argument.

      1. The Cosmic Avenger*

        Exactly. And “I found it unprofessional for [HR schmoe] to threaten an employee, particularly when they are demanding employees follow incorrect procedures” or something like that. You could even say you found it unprofessional and shocking, upsetting, but kind of like Alison says when you have a problem with a coworker, stick to the impact more than your personal feelings. The company can’t fix your feelings, nor should they, but they can try to fix the issue that caused the feelings in order to ameliorate the negative impact of the issue on the company.

      2. Ellis Bell*

        Absolutely; it’s the actions, not the reactions. When someone is as wildly out of line as this HR rep, just talk about their actions and don’t muddy the waters talking about yourself and how you took it.

    4. Another Kate*

      Absolutely this. To be clear, If I were in your situation there would have been steam coming out of my ears, but if your organizational culture is more…understated…there are ways to get that across using alternative terminologies. (For example, when the head of my organization expresses “concern,” everyone snaps to attention. When they express “deep concern,” it might as well be a national emergency.)

      So of course you were “angry,” but really you were “confused that HR and the state licensing board were offering different guidance,” and you were “deeply concerned” that this might result in an error that would reflect badly on your organization. If pressed, you may have been “a bit frustrated,” but you’re “relieved and grateful” that everything turned out well, and of COURSE you’re “happy to work with the group to ensure that guidance around licensure as shared with my colleagues is accurate and up to date going forward.” (Note: That’s HR’s job. They probably won’t take you up on that.) Whoever you’re talking to should have an inner Anger Translator (cf. Key and Peele) and will know EXACTLY what you’re saying.

      1. linger*

        True that you can get away with less in writing. Also Manager is essentially saying they do not consider their role is to manage OP’s feelings. But let us remember:
        HR Worker explicitly threatened OP’s job, in writing, over HR Worker’s own error.
        Why is that direct threat being treated less seriously than an expression of emotion in response?

        1. Because white collar culture sucks*

          Because a direct threat to your job from HR is par for the course and the peons responding to it aren’t allowed to have emotions about that. It’s tone policing writ large in the culture. Where the people with power can screw up and screw you over and you better smile all the way.

        2. Allonge*

          Because two wrongs don’t make a right. OP made a (much much smaller) error that their manager needed to address still. This says nothing about what the HR rep deserved.

    5. londonedit*

      Totally agree. It’s completely understandable for the OP to be angry, because HR seems to have acted appallingly in this situation.

      But I often find that removing the emotion from any actual communication is far more effective. You were ‘dismayed to discover’ that HR had given the wrong information. You’re ‘frustrated that it took several attempts to reason with HR’ before you were ‘reluctantly forced to take matters into your own hands and go against HR advice’, at which point you were ‘stunned to discover that the information had been incorrect all along and a licence was extremely easily procured shortly after’. You might even have ‘lost all faith in HR’s ability to advocate for staff and provide vital information’ or whatever. Being dispassionate about it and stating the bald facts makes a much stronger impact than talking about how angry you are, in my experience.

      1. Filthy Vulgar Mercenary*

        YES! Because it leads the reader to the same conclusion as you (‘wtf this is outrageous’) without you ‘telling’ them what to feel by expressing what you feel.

        (Not saying this is correct, but people often trust the messenger more when they can show their decisions are made from logic and not emotion. Not saying that’s right – there definitely is tone-policing around emotions, especially for certain groups more than others – but that’s what it generally is, in my experience).

        1. Merrie*

          I try to be very factual reporting things that people fuck up. The reader (almost always it’s aimed at someone with the same credentials and training I have) should be able to recognize the error the same as I did. I might be more explicit if talking to someone who I thought wouldn’t have the background to put the pieces together in the same way.

      2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        It’s funny, communicating in a way that is cold, professional, and precise communicates anger almost as well as “hot” anger, but is considered much more acceptable, most of the time.

        If you communicate like this all the time, you might get feedback about not being warm and friendly enough. But once in a blue moon, hard to argue with.

      3. Coverage Associate*

        Huh. It’s such a narrow line to walk. “Stunned…reluctant…grateful” strikes me as a lot of emotion words for a work email, but I know if I wrote an email that was basically a timeline in sentences: “I first contacted HR on…They advised…I submitted…the agency responded…” I would be feeling passive aggressive writing it, maybe indignant, and would worry that that would come through.

      1. Bumblebee*

        This whole thread was more helpful than a decade of happy managers telling me to be more happy!

    7. B*

      I think you can be even stronger and state, for example, “It is unacceptable that this happened and urge HR to immediately ensure the process is fixed.” That conveys the severity and importance of the issue, while still keeping the focus on the problem and the solution to the problem, not on your own feelings about it.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        I mean, even words like “threatened” and “confront” are just fine so long as they are factually accurate (the HR rep did confront them and threaten their job). It doesn’t have to be topically positive or glossed over, OP just needs to keep the focus on the HR reps actions, not their own.

    8. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

      I think it’s also OK to talk about the consequences that this nonsense had. Like, resolving it took X amount of time, which you could have spent doing your actual job. It also led to a significant level of stress, as the licensing affects your employment.

      Also, it was *inappropriate* for HR to threaten to fire you. It’s kind of like starting off with “I’m angry because it was inappropriate / unprofessional / whatever that the HR rep did THIS THING.” Then just deleting the “I’m angry because.” LW, you are 100% right to be angry! I would be, too! But people get weird when you say it.

    9. Elbe*

      This is a great point.

      As justified as the LW’s anger was, it’s not really something that the company can solve. It is more useful, and more professional, to focus on the actual behaviors that need to addressed by management.

      The standard terms of “concern” and “confusion” and “frustration” would be good during the process. Now that the main issues at hand have been finalized (the LW has their license), the LW can focus on the broader picture. I think it would be fair to use blunt language like, “This treatment was completely unprofessional/unacceptable” , “I’ve lost confidence in HR’s ability to handle issues accurately and appropriately”, etc.

  5. Coffee Protein Drink*

    That should not have happened. I would have been angry as well.

    I think it’s important to be able to express that you’re angry, though in this case, I would do it in a safer space, ideally in a 1:1 meeting with my manager with all the documented reasons. A good manager would take it to the head of HR (or if this yutz was the head of HR to the COO) and get it addressed.

    Sometimes I swear there are no emotions allowed in the office. It’s tiring.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Agreed – I think putting this kind of thing in writing can be tricky, because emotional statements can be very dependent on tone and context. “I am angry about this” can be meant in a calm but forceful way, and read as shouting or threatening by the recipient or someone reading the documentation down the line. Is that right? Probably not. But it’s better not to have it out there.

      However feelings are real, work can be stressful, and ideally you’ll have a manager or other supporter you can express yourself to and be heard. Feelings shouldn’t be inherently unprofessional as long as the actions that accompany those feelings remain professional, and it sounds like yours did.

      1. Sloanicota*

        For the record, it is quite unfair if OP was taken to task for using one word wrong in an email (after all, angry vs concerned is essentially semantics) and this HR person was *not* taken to task for making a work dispute personal by saying they’d be happy to post OP’s job – no need for that. But at the end of the day, OP can only control themselves, not how someone in a different department is managed.

        1. Drowning in Spreadsheets*

          For the record, it is quite unfair if OP was taken to task for using one word wrong in an email

          Massively so. I agree with everyone who is wondering just where the heck OP’s manager is in all this. They should have been focusing on, “Who pissed off my employee?” rather than, “My employee said they were angry.”

        2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

          100%. It’s unfortunate that we all have to do this silly dance, but it’s a good strategic move most of the time.

        3. Manic Pixie HR Girl*

          Well, we don’t know the HR rep WASN’T taken to task. OP wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be privy to that.

    2. ragazza*

      And yet there’s this whole “bring your whole self to work!” and “we’re a family!” attitude. You want that, then you have to deal with the good and bad.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        “We’re a family” is a sign you should run full speed in the other direction

  6. juliebulie*

    OP, I am angry for you. There is plenty of anger to go around. It is difficult sometimes to imagine that people can be so irrational and just plain mean, and then they go ahead and do that. And I’m not sure where your supervisor was in all of this, but it really doesn’t sound as though they had your back.

    2. Standard Human*

      Yeah, the central question aside, I am also angry for you. I’m mad about your company’s general HR approach and processes. I work with what I think of as replacement level HR, and they’d take the time to make a call to the certifying agency. The threat to post your job — talk about unprofessional.

      I’m also not wild about your supervisor.

  7. Caro*

    For me, the ”I was angry” thing was justified when the HR person threatened to get the OP fired over it in a public email. That warranted courteously clapping back in a civilised, measured way and stating that one is angry and upset is entirely reasonable.

    I would be asking my manager about if the HR person concerned had any form of remonstration for making threats in a group email? Was there ever an apology forthcoming?

    1. Shoot another shot, try to stop the feeling (on phone)*

      Yeah, HR manager is in the “find out” phase.

    2. PineappleColada*

      I absolutely agree. I’m in HR, and I concur with all of Alison’s points. However, where I think it’s justifiable to express that you are angry is in a situation like this, where your job is threatened.

      This is not the same as saying “I am angry you didn’t file the TYP reports for our product approval”…this is someone in a position of some authority (maybe not final authority, but certainly input) who was threatening your livelihood due to her error.

      I think of all the situations where a brief statement of anger (not the emotion, just the statement) is warranted, this is it.

    3. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      It is natural to feel angry that HR openly threatened her job when it was their own incompetence. HR clearly crossed the line.here.
      However, it is almost never OK at work to state – in writing – that you are angry.

      I’d have written a coldly factual EM including “dismayed …. lack of professionalism … urgently needs training in this area”

      1. Lea*

        ‘Hr was extremely unprofessional to threaten my job over their own errors’ would more than make the point.

    4. Busy Middle Manager*

      Agreed. Some of the other comments seem a bit, from a place of being sheltered? Two jobs ago, I worked at a place that had what felt like too many HR reps per employee. They would talk to employees like this and I realized after a while they did not have our best interests at heart. Someone would have one minor incident or wrong glance in a meeting, then do excellent work, then a year later, HR would bring up the thing everyone had forgotten about.

      In that sort of environment, bowing down to HR would actually make any given situation worse or hurt your long-term viability at the job. You do need to push back. Being super professional and calm sometimes doesn’t work when the other person is unhinged or wrapped up in their own version of events.

      1. Sloanicota*

        That could be true in another environment, but here we can see OP’s boss wasn’t happy with how OP phrased their concern and actually raised it with them, so it apparently was not okay in their mind.

        1. Despachito*

          The thing is, can OP’s boss’s judgment and/or the boss themselves be trusted?

          I don’t think a good manager should have a bigger problem with a wording that does not 100% fit the corporate lingo than with the fact that someone THREATENED a coworker over a huge mistake they made themselves.

          The nitpicking about the right word in this context seems just ridiculous to me.

  8. Freddy*

    The supervisor should have let it (OP being angry) go. And yep, I’m wondering if OP is a woman and if so, if that has anything to do with it.

    1. WellRed*

      Could just as easily be a man “angry” at a female HR employee and having an inadvertent effect that way.

      2. Lab Boss*

        That’s my experience. I’m a very large man with a very deep voice and have had to consciously learn to temper my spoken, written, and non-verbal language because things that would convey “I’m not happy” from someone else convey “I am furious” from me.

      1. Elsewise*

        I was also wondering if race played a role in this. To be clear, I think the general expectation of not expressing “negative” emotions in the workplace does exist for everyone, but anger is more socially punished for some people than others.

        (Incidentally, this could go either way. If LW is a 6’4″ Black man who’s built like a linebacker, his manager might be jumping to “angry LW = scary, bad, possible violence” too quickly. If LW is a tiny white woman, she might be used to being seen as “feisty” or “passionate” rather than “angry”, even when she explicitly says she’s angry.)

    3. Busy Middle Manager*

      I never got the need to guess genders here but FWIW HR is 75% female (b/t 72% and 80% depending on source/date of survey) so it would very likely be a female responding to a female in your scenario. Not sure what that proves or shows or doesn’t show

    4. Nesprin*

      +1 I was wondering about OP’s gender/other commonly discriminated against characteristics as well- women are punished for being angry in ways that men are typically not.
      (classic examples: he is forceful, she is bossy, he is passionate, she is emotional)

      That said it’s entirely possible that male OP getting angry at HR woman would trigger some protective impulses as well.

    5. Sloanicota*

      I recall reading in an account of successful legal defenses that women are never allowed to be angry. They are only allowed to be scared or protecting a child. Any reference to anger is an automatic strike against the defendant. That said, this may also be true for male defendants, but I think we’re extra hard on women.

      1. Freddy*

        That’s what I was getting at. OP being a woman and therefore not allowed to be angry. I’m thinking the supervisor is the one with the bias, possibly.

        1. Tangerina Warbleworth*

          … or, if she is angry, no matter how justified, she gets the label of being “too emotional” — no matter how impeccably professional and calm she in virtually every other circumstance.

  9. Archi-detect*

    I feel like that HR person spent the entire corse of the situation downplaying everything they did wrong and highlighting everything the writer did, and the word angry qualified as ammunition

    1. Lab Boss*

      Which is honestly why, although it’s not “fair,” it’s good to learn to talk the corporate talk. Don’t give the person who made you angry an easy thing to throw back at you by implying that you’re being hostile, threatening, or overly emotional.

      1. Archi-detect*

        yeah there is a lot of value in knowing someone is looking for things to use and being super careful

    2. Quinalla*

      Yes, not sure how your manager explained it OP, but this is what I would have told you. You should be angry and frustrated by this, but putting it in writing it inadvisable because it will be used against you. I would never advise putting that in writing at work, it’s ok to talk about with people you trust and even to very low level show frustration sparingly, but white collar work tends to not respond well to anger and anger is extra problematic the further you get from the straight/white/dude norm too, especially for black folks :( Even as a straight/white/woman, my expressing mild frustration can be seen as overly aggressive where my straight/white/male counterparts get a pass on their strong frustration or even anger.

      And OP, is your manager aware of HRs incompetence AND doubling down when trying to point out their error AND how they were weirdly threatening your job?! It’s not clear to me if they have the full picture, make sure they do as this is a HUGE problem. Incompetence is one thing, but firmly doubling down on it and threatening your job is a HUGE issue.

    3. Sloanicota*

      True, but HR generally has the upper hand in such things, so I’m not surprised it fell out this way.

  10. Berin*

    Cultural norms are weird.

    OP, if you feel the need to go back to your supervisor, some suggested framing: you realize that stating your anger in an email was not the way to move forward, and you’ll be cognizant of that in the future, BUT that the HR rep threatened to fire you while being completely wrong about a key part of her role, and you are concerned (lol) about how this will affect others who may require the same licensing. It also puts you and your supervisor in the position of having to fact-check in guidance that this HR rep provides moving forward. Then ask what can be done to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.

    If you have a good relationship with your supervisor, you may be able to be even more blunt: that you’re concerned (again, lol) that your email faux pas is going to overshadow the very real threat that this HR rep posed to your career.

    Good luck. This HR rep was so far over the line, I’m angry just reading about it!

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Yes! Did this rep get a talking to at all? Were there any repercussions for this?

      1. Pizza Rat*

        It doesn’t sound like there were any repercussions because HR chose to focus on the LW’s anger rather than the righteous reasons for it.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Well it sounds like OP’s manager addressed the anger issue, which I won’t necessarily defend but if anyone is going to do it that’s the appropriate person. Likewise the HR rep’s manager would hopefully address their role in the issue with them, but that information might not be publicly shared.

      2. Physics Lab Tech*

        I would love to know that as well. At the moment the only way I can think to hold our HR accountable for their mistake in not paying someone is legally.

    2. Gumby*

      you are concerned (lol) about how this will affect others who may require the same licensing.

      Heck, you are concerned about ALL of the policies, procedures, and laws that HR may or may not be current with. HR has demonstrated an inability to stay up to date on important licensing requirements and you are wondering about other areas in which the company might be exposed to legal liability because of that lack.

  11. Shoot another shot, try to stop the feeling*

    A lot of people believe that being critical/negative is always bad.

    These people are wrong.

      1. Shoot another shot, try to stop the feeling*

        I’m not contradicting Alison! Rather, OP’s boss. Just because someone has a angry reaction to something doesn’t quite make that anger “bad.” Should have been clearer, sorry!

    2. Hannah*

      “Bad” is such a subjective word. Can anger be healthy? Of course. Can anger get you fired? Yes to that too.

      One of the things I really love about this blog is that it focuses on what *is* rather than what *should be*. And the reality is, anger can be a problem at a job no matter how healthy / justified it is.

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Subjective means not rooted in facts or evidence. “Good” and “bad” are inherently subjective words because a) they’re vague to the point of being useless and b) they lack any objective criteria.

    4. PotatoRock*

      I think the point isn’t “anger isn’t ok at work because it’s negative”; it’s that anger isn’t accepted in many workplaces; but these other forms of expressing negativity are.

  12. Yup*

    You stated you were angry, you didn’t demonstrate angry by doing something that was inappropriate.

    HR were in the wrong and should have apologized. They made your life very difficult and threatened your job. I think stating your feelings for the record is not only natural but a logical and measured response to the situation. They are not managing robots. They are managing people and people have emotions, and you demonstrated your ability to voice those emotions in an honest and appropriate way.

    I don’t know if you are M or F (or other), but women in the workforce have long been criticized for showing the very same emotions men do–and men often do this in a threatening way, whereas women state their feelings and are considered “too emotional.” If this is what’s happening here, that’s more discrimination and I am baffled as to why HR isn’t being made to apologize and change their policies.

    1. Shoot another shot, try to stop the feeling*

      “You stated you were angry, you didn’t demonstrate angry by doing something that was inappropriate.”

      I really love how you phrased this, I agree.

  13. Excel Gardener*

    In an ideal world I agree with OP that it should be ok to express justified anger in appropriate and measured ways at work (and other situations, like relationships). Certainly you shouldn’t yell, rant, lose your temper, or act aggressive in any way, but I feel that it should be ok to express that you’re angry, and I think most adults are capable of that.

    That said, Alison is right about what the norms actually are, and while they are not ideal, they are better than the other extreme where people are constantly yelling at and berating each other.

  14. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    Saying “I am angry” in an email that can go anywhere is probably not the best choice.

    Saying “I am angry” in a 1-1 conversation with your manager is better.

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      Strongly agree. Threatening someone’s job in an email is also not the best choice, and I really wonder if there was any follow-up on that end, but I do understand OP might not be positioned to know that.

      1. Filthy Vulgar Mercenary*

        But if someone is going to threaten anyone’s job, I definitely hope they do it in email :)

  15. DramaQ*

    I know you’re not supposed to say you are angry but I feel like in this case it was warranted. She almost cost you your license, your job and it sounds like if you had gone ahead and done it her way all heck would have broken loose on YOU, not her.

    You are 100% right to be angry and I am rather surprised your boss wasn’t raining fire because it sounds like that would have been a pretty big mess that would have reflected on him as well if you hadn’t been assertive enough to push back, especially in light of her threatening your job.

    That is creating a hostile work environment and retaliation. Those at least according to my training are grounds for termination. So you’re being told not to say you are angry but what are they doing to address the HR lady’s actions?

  16. Ziggy*

    You’re allowed to be angry, you’re allowed to verbally tell your supervisor (if they can be trusted) that you are angry, but you never use the word “angry” in written format because then you become a liability. It’s silly. But it is what it is. Which is why we have the phrases that dance around the true meaning but we all know what is really meant. Sigh.

    1. Lab Boss*

      It’s like the old joke where you can watch C-Span and get a point for every time you spot an elected official calling someone an “asshole” without actually saying it. Things like “My esteemed colleague.”

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        One thing I enjoy about where I live is that in court, lawyers refer to opposing counsel as “my friend.” It is often said politely, but occasionally you can tell that they’re using “my friend” as a stand-in for “that asshole.”

  17. NotAnotherManager!*

    This whole experience has been “frustrating” for LW and they are “concerned” that their job would be threatened in such a cavalier manner and also that HR is not aware of current compliance and licensure procedures. Having to do multiple rounds of paperwork and rejections has “not been a good use of anyone’s time” either.

    Also, where is LW’s manager in all this? I see that they provided feedback on the use of the term “angry”, but, if something like this happened with one of my folks, I’d have been calling the HR person and possibly their boss at the threatening-my-employee’s-job stage of the game, at minimum to express my “concern” over the way the situation was being handled and also to “find a time to get togther to review the updated licensure requirements to ensure we are all on the same page, both for LW’s situation and going forward.”

    1. Hannah Lee*

      Yeah the absence of the LW’s boss way back in the multiple rounds of incorrect applications was strange, but by the time it came to HR rep threatening LW’s job and professional standing in an email blast, boss should have been on the Batphone to HR management to ask What in the Tarnation was going on over there.

  18. Skippy*

    The supervisor didn’t advocate for OP or make sure they had the tools to do their job, and now they’re policing OP’s reaction. (We don’t know if HR reacted negatively to “angry,” just the supervisor who left OP out to dry.)

    I would add “the situation was extremely frustrating” as something OK to say. another tack is to point out all the ways in which thisb prevented OP from doing their job and hindered the company’s goals.

    But mostly OP needs to get a different job.

    1. Pizza Rat*

      I’d want to be out of there. HR threatening the LW’s job and the supervisor not stepping in at that point are a couple of big red flags to me. LW had the state regulations backing them up, and as someone said above, this should not have happened.

  19. Yours Sincerely, Raymond Holt*

    I understand the convention but surely it doesn’t reflect very well on the manager if their *only* (or even main) reaction was to finger wag about LW expressing anger?

    Was it “you are obviously in the right here, I’m sorry this happened, x y and z is what’s happening next regarding that employee. I would say for the future, it made me concerned to hear you express anger, and that’s not ideal. I understand why you would feel angry but we’d prefer you don’t share that emotion in a professional context.”

    Or was it:

    “Telling us you’re angry was unprofessional, the end.”

    You shouldn’t be getting more criticism than support, and you shouldn’t be getting more criticism than the terrible HR colleague.

    1. Daryush*

      We have no idea if there have been any repercussions for the HR person. Normally, employee disciplinary actions are private so I doubt the LW would be able to find out anything even if she asked.

      1. NotAnotherManager!*

        The specifics should be kept confidential, but, if an employee raises an issue, it’s not out of line to tell them that you heard their concern and it’s being addressed without going into specifics.

    2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

      Agreed. The manager could frame the feedback as something to keep in mind that will help her in the future dealing with nonsense. Like yes, your anger is justified, this whole thing was BS, but there is a risk that expressing anger in an e-mail is going to be used against you. So the recommendation is to use other words, like “concerned” or “troubled” in the future, to keep the focus on dealing with the nonsense, where it belongs.

      1. ThatOtherClare*

        This is unfortunately correct. “Frustrated and concerned” would be the closest equivalent.

    2. Midwest Manager too!*

      I noted downthread that I use “upset and frustrated”, but always in the context of the situation – never with the person directly. “This situation is extremely frustrating and I’m sure you can understand why I find it upsetting.” This phrasing has always gone over well for me.

    3. Space Needlepoint*

      I wouldn’t use “upset.” That’s a word that would get a person called too emotional or unprofessional, no matter how warranted.

    4. Seashell*

      Maybe frustrated in a more passive manner. “It was frustrating that I received the incorrect licensing information and had my job threatened because of it.” That’s a few notches down from “angry”.

      1. whimbrel*

        ‘Frustrating’ for me is ‘I’ve tried to submit my travel request six times and I keep getting error messages, what gives?’ or ‘what does PC LOAD LETTER’ even mean?’. I’d want something stronger for ‘HR screwed up and then threatened my job’.

  21. Daryush*

    Part of it is also that, if you have complaints about someone else’s work, especially in a different department, it’s often better to go up the reporting chain to their manager or your own rather than emailing them directly. Emailing them directly to say you’re angry, it feels like you are picking a fight.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, that incompetent HR turd was always going to weaponise this kind of EMail.
      Don’t make it easy for them to deflect criticism back onto you

  22. Czhorat*

    I wouldn’t put “angry” in an email for the reasons Allisin gave, but I WOULD be angry. I’d also have been ABSOLUTELY sure to call out the HR rep for their mistake and for the threat to my job; if someone makes a good-faith mistake, is apologetic, and moves to correct it then I’d be happy to let it quietly be swept under the proverbial rug. If the other person is not only wrong but aggressive and hostile about it then I feel no compulsion to protect them from their boss seeing the scope of their errors.

    In that light, the word “angry” might end up distracting from the real issue by putting attention on a loaded word.

  23. Lacey*

    I find there are generally unspoken rules in most offices about who is allowed to be angry.

    In my experience managers are allowed to be angry at other managers or departments. But, they cannot be angry at people directly above or below them & they can only express their anger to other managers or their own direct reports. Even then, they probably won’t say they’re angry – they are frustrated.

    Peons cannot be angry. They can only ever be concerned.
    And don’t be too concerned, everyone else is smarter than you, so your concern is probably unwarranted.

    Salespeople can be angry at anyone for any reason.
    Except clients. Clients must be placated by any means necessary & sales people are not allowed to admit to anyone that what the client wants is unhinged &/or physically impossible.

    1. Pita Chips*

      This is disturbingly correct.

      Regarding sales people, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve dealt with one who sold something that didn’t exist yet, that might only have been a business case, not even in development. Major pain point for me.

    2. Dust Bunny*

      I cannot tell you how many times at my veterinary job we all, veterinarians included, wanted to scream at and choke some sense into our clients, but with the exception of a very few times when the client went after us, personally (once physically. The police were called), expressing anger is a major no-no.

  24. kicking-k*

    I’m in the UK where understatement is a cultural pastime. I think the strongest I’ve ever gone is “I’m not best pleased by the way this has been handled”. It’s always clear what I mean.

    1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      “I look forward to hearing how this is to be resolved. Regards, Kicking-K.”

      ::HR moves to another continent just in case::

      1. Space Needlepoint*

        “…especially as state regulations say…. (with link or “see attached)”

      2. journeyboots*

        I like “can you help me understand…” too (especially when there is no way for them to explain without admitting to their own error.

  25. AnonymousOctopus*

    As a neurodivergent person from a family of military/blue collar workers…. Man, how is anyone supposed to just “know” this stuff? I learned early in my white collar job not to express any emotion in emails, but that left me without the diplomatic office language in my toolbox to push back on bullshit. I’ve spent the last several years just swallowing my company’s nonsense and pushing down simmering anger because I didn’t know how to express it.

    I’m grateful for Alison’s examples here, but sheesh. My career might look very different now if I had known how to do this years ago!

    1. Mentalrose*

      Right? I’ve been working for and with my folks for the last 17 years and I am fairly sure that the way I talk to and around them is not even remotely the way I ought to do it, but I have no idea what I actually should do. None. I follow the rules once I figure them out but I too am neurodivergent and they don’t make a lick of sense to me. This has gotten me into trouble before. Now that I am looking for a new job, the “language” of professionalism has me terrified. Because it’s clearly not the same as “just be polite”. I am *living* on this website lately so I can learn how to look and act like the 50-something professional adult I supposedly am.

      *adds ‘don’t tell people you are angry” to personal toolkit*

    2. Daryush*

      Honestly, I think it’s good advice to not express emotion in email. Telling someone you’re “frustrated” or “dismayed” isn’t going to magically open any doors for you that would otherwise be closed.

    3. Dust Bunny*

      Language choice isn’t a magic bullet if your workplace has a bigger nonsense problem.

      Also, a lot of people seem to think the there are only two binary choices: Too Much Emotion for hte workplace or something so vague and sterile that it doesn’t make sense. Professor Patty Labelle’s wording above is great: It’s pretty clear you’re angry but you’re not letting the emotional part drive the truck.

    4. online millenial*

      It’s absolutely a cultural thing that you’re just supposed to know, and it’s wrapped up in ALL kinds of elements of class, race, gender, and ability. This is very much a reflection of a society that privileges middle/upper class faux-gentility, whiteness, and neurotypicalness. (And as people have said, gender complicates this too, in that women are seen as hysterical/overly emotional when expressing feelings milder than men who yell and slam things.) If you’re in a white collar job, you should be from a background in which you’ll just KNOW this stuff, is the assumption. It’s a significant problem.

      I don’t have a good recommendation here, other than to keep reading AAM, just wanted to confirm that this isn’t at all a failing on your part! “Professionalism” is a social construct and a lot of the foundation for it is based in pretty nasty biases.

      1. maude_lebowski*

        All of this! “Professionalism” is not a neutral good.

        I think there’s room for our definition of what constitutes “professional” behavior to expand to accommodate a broader spectrum of cultural (etc.) behaviors that don’t actually have that much to do with whether a given person is good at their job.

      2. Ellis Bell*

        Yes to the classism; there’s an unsaid rule that you should be comfortably well off, with enough of an emergency fund or access to family help, that you should never be frankly terrified about losing your job. The letter a while back from a manager who wasn’t paying an employee on time mentioned that she felt her employee wouldn’t be upset if she had budgeted correctly. Staff not getting paid, or job insecurity would have a blue collar workforce on the picket line, but if you’re white collar you have to pretend it’s merely “dismaying” to rely on your savings and your prospects.

        1. Physics Lab Tech*

          That’s exactly why I just sent an email to HR that ended with “To be franker, I am glad that my last day is so soon. “

      3. Because white collar culture sucks*

        Yes! Thank you for that. I have no known neurodiversity but the white color world is simply incomprehensible and some of the alternate responses being offered here don’t tell me that you’re angry – they just read like gibberish or they read as concerned, which isn’t the same thing. At all.

        One of my coworkers likes to call the entire profession we work in “passive-aggressive” but she says she likes me because I’m just “aggressive”. :P Maybe I get what she means now.

    5. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      I don’t think you are supposed to “just know it”. I mean, this letter demonstrates that, doesn’t it? You learned not to express emotion in emails – that’s also not “just knowing it”, that’s learning it. I am NT, but I have repeatedly been criticized for my tone in emails in various jobs. People read stuff that isn’t there because they have a different lens than I do.

      There’s also different rules for different workplaces. In some, this would have been fine. Not in this one. You learn them as you go. There is no one unifying set of rules for everywhere.

      It might be easier for a NT person, but we’re all learning the norms when we’re new to the working world and then when we change jobs or start working with new people. Otherwise this blog wouldn’t exist.

    6. Frankie Bergstein*

      I agree – I think this is yet another professional skill to be learned, harder for some than others. And the reasons why it’s easier for some than others are unfair, to put it mildly.

  26. Midwest Manager too!*

    Instead of “angry” I will typically use language like “upset”, “frustrated”, etc. I also make a point to indicate that I’m upset by the situation, not that I’m upset at the person. This deflects the emotion off the individual and makes it less personal. Even if I’m furious at the person and their never-ending incompetence, it’s always the situation that gets the brunt of my ire.

    1. Jessica*

      I think “disappointed”/”disappointing” is another possible codeword for the molten, incandescent rage we are all feeling along with the LW just reading this outrageous letter. :-)

      I’m disappointed in the way this was handled.

      1. Wendy Darling*

        I had a grandboss who I described as “Dad is not angry he’s just disappointed” and everyone somehow knew exactly what I meant.

        For some reason even though “frustrated” at home means “I’m really annoyed by my inability to get this lid off this jar”, at work it means “I am absolutely incandescent with fury at this flagrant incompetence and/or bad behavior”. Apparently professionalism means turning down all expression of negative emotions about 5 levels, so “that is the worst idea I have heard in my entire life” becomes “that seems potentially problematic”.

    2. Physics Lab Tech*

      I have also used ‘disappointed’ to talk about decisions that others have made that I feel are, frankly, illegal.

  27. Remarkable4real*

    I would start looking for another job. To me, this place sound to be a little incompetent. HR is not suppose to make mistakes and I understand it can happen. However, HR should have corrected her mistake and apologize.

    1. Over It*

      Ehh it depends! I have an HR department that seems on par with LW’s, but I only deal with them for hiring, firing, benefits and accommodations. They make my life a gigantic headache every time I need something from them, but I interface with them rarely enough that I wouldn’t quit my job over it. Lots of other jobs are similar re: HR. If it’s an otherwise good job, I wouldn’t job search over this, but if there are other issues then it would be wise to look around.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        ^^ Very true. Our current HR “department” is a department of one, and while they’re a lovely person, I would never go to them with any actual HR issue. Fine for processing benefits, not someone that I would ever want to bring a complicated HR issue to.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, especially as the OP’s manager doesn’t seem to have been very supportive or active while the licence issue was ongoing, but immediately called her out about EMing she was angry.
      He seems too inclined to criticise and too reluctant to support.

  28. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    Most of my career accomplishments were born in moments of anger midwifed by spite. Especially in imperfect environments, anger can get stuff done.

    I’d have responded to the supervisor that “anger is a residue of caring. Are you sure you want to extinguish both?”

    I agree that the HR person’s conduct needs to be reviewed. I’d also be pushing it up the food chain until I found someone appalled enough by the conduct to do something about it. Possibly angry enough to risk getting myself fired pursuing justice as long as the HR rep ended up applying for unemployment benefits, too.

    1. Wendy Darling*

      A friend of mine recently sent me a message saying “I’m sorry to attack you” with a screenshot of a satirical article with the headline “‘You Know What, Fuck This. I Don’t Even Care Anymore,’ Says Woman Who Continues To Try Very Hard” and I have never felt so called out in my life (but also I laughed really hard).

    2. Ellis Bell*

      Funnily enough, I think “appalled” would have been a great word to use if you didn’t want to pull any punches. It conveys the level of the emotion accurately but without any connotations of fists in walls and flipped desks. Appalled people are typically more passive than angry people. I don’t think of anger and violence as being one concept personally, and I would have never seen the issue with the word, but a lot of people connect them.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      Most of my career accomplishments were born in moments of anger midwifed by spite. Especially in imperfect environments, anger can get stuff done.

      I’d have responded to the supervisor that “anger is a residue of caring. Are you sure you want to extinguish both?”

      I absolutely love this. And it’s true – when I no longer care enough to get angry about something, then I’m done.

  29. El l*

    Emotions are fine at work, they just have to be bounded.

    It’s a shame that in your case, that boundary was set so strong that you couldn’t accurately but reasonably state your feelings.

    On some level, there’s no arguing with culture…at least in the short term.

  30. BBB*

    yeah I’d push back on this
    while it might be a faux pas to admit to anger in the work place, it’s a bigger faux pas for HR to threaten your position over their own mistake!
    do not accept squabbling over your word choice (an intentional deflection) when a much bigger issue is at play.

    1. Chick-n-Boots*

      THANK YOU. While I have been an expert over the years in deploying the carefully crafted alternative language of the professional workplace to express my “frustration” or “displeasure” around a situation, or addressing how “challenging” the circumstances were, I’m also pretty irritated that in extraordinary circumstances like this we can’t acknowledge that at the end of the day we are all people and we experience emotions! It is not unprofessional (IMO) for the LW to have acknowledged that the entire process was frustrating and that they were angry at being belittled by HR and having their job threatened, all the while that very same person was not doing their due diligence or their job and was refusing to acknowledge that what they were asking for (dictating, really) was not in alignment with current regulations and nearly cost the LW their license! Those are all huge issues and I think you can fairly say that any reasonable person would have been angry! If the LW had *acted out* or overtly *expressed* anger, that would be different – and agree that is unacceptable. But to merely *say* they felt angry because of how badly this was handled and how aggressively confrontational the HR person was seems eminently reasonable to me.

      So now I’m angry at the manager because I agree with you – focusing on one word expressed (not an emotion expressed, a WORD) as somehow being any part of the problem in this situation is absolutely them deflecting from the larger issue.

    2. Elbe*

      It could be fine if the HR rep’s behavior was handled appropriately, and the LW’s manager comment was framed more like, “Just so you know, you’re not supposed to do this again.”

      But I think it’s fair that the LW should be informed about how this situation was handled wrt to the HR Rep. Particularly if the LW has to work with this person going forward, they have a right to know what action was taken to address such poor behavior. If the LW is getting comments in their review, but no action was taken to do right by them… then that is a MASSIVE red flag. That is a huge indication that the company is dysfunctional.

  31. Melissa*

    It’s so odd, but yes, Alison is on the money. You were “extremely upset,” you were “dismayed,” you “lost sleep over this.” But for some reason, “angry” hits differently.

      1. Laser99*

        Same. Also “publically” instead of “publicly”. Oh, and “pacifically.” “I pacifically said…”. Urgh. I’m cringing just thinking about it.

    2. New Jack Karyn*

      I saw that too, and thought it a masterclass in showing how it’s done, while *not* nitpicking someone else’s grammar.

  33. Area Woman*

    I think it is more than ok to say, yep, lesson learned. I won’t say “angry” again in an email. But do not feel bad about it. This situation was bonkers. I have not written an email with the word angry, but have made verbal complaints to upper management using phrases such as “driven to a white-hot rage by their incompetence.” Do not feel bad about being angry. Learn the lesson not to write the word down. That’s it!

  34. kanada*

    Yeah, your manager was way off base to bring this up. This person threatened your job because they were incompetent and too arrogant to address their incompetence when it was pointed out to them. Whether or not this might normally be a faux pas is irrelevant here, and a reasonable manager wouldn’t have brought it up with you (unless it was to warn you about /their/ manager’s unreasonableness).

  35. Physics Lab Tech*

    I used the word ‘horrified’ to describe something HR did (not pay someone for a month then wait until the next pay period to pay them), and honestly I’m not sure if I would have done that if I didn’t already have another job lined up.

    1. Genevieve*

      I’m cowering over here. Please don’t follow it with “But what do I know, it’s none of my business. Do what you think is best.”

      ::shudders and calls therapist::

  37. MyStars*

    OP, now that your licensure is current, seems like a good time to see who else out there is looking for the licensed services you provide. Because clearly, neither your current manager nor your corporate HR have your back. I already look forward to the update.

  38. Delta Delta*

    I just want to add one additional thing, as a fellow licensed professional. Always always always be in charge of your own licensing. Stupid stuff like this comes up, and unless the HR person or office manager or whomever in your office coordinates relicensing is also a licensed professional, they may get it wrong and they simply do not care that they get it wrong. And the reason is because they have nothing on the line. If you lose your license, you have to jump through hoops to get it back and/or potentially face professional discipline. The HR person doesn’t feel any of those ramifications. To them it’s another stack of paper to push around. If the manager/boss also has the same licensure, they would understand that it isn’t just another stack of paper. If you can, always do it yourself. If your organization pays for it (some do), just seek reimbursement.

    So – were you justified in feeling angry? Absolutely. There’s a lot on the line. Could you have picked a different word? Sure. There’s a whole thesaurus full of words that you could use very witheringly to convey that this HR person unnecessarily created problems and threatened you based upon their own mistake.

    It might not be the worst to casually start looking for another job.

  39. Parenthesis Guy*

    I’d be curious to know if your HR apologized and whether your manager tried to help with the process. If not, it seems like both are out of line.

    If I were you, I would consider asking your grandboss for a meeting to discuss.

    1. Manic Pixie HR Girl*

      Agreed. Your manager should have intervened (with HR Rep’s manager) when your job was being threatened.

  40. Pretty as a Princess*

    My go-tos are “deeply concerned,” “deeply uncomfortable,” and “alarmed.”

    I think that “angry” gets conflated with “lost your cool” or “emotion overwhelms logic” when using the word in a professional setting.

    I think that the manager here missed an opportunity. Because the feedback they provided sort of glanced off the side. This was an excellent chance to have a mentoring conversation about how emotion words can be loaded at work.

    Saying that you are deeply concerned about the extent to which the HR team was misinformed and gave improper guidance that caused problems with your required licensure and that you were “alarmed to be threatened by an HR team member” is interpreted as having a greater degree of control/rational analysis of the situation, with the bonus of highlighting that there was aggression on the part of the HR rep. There’s a lot of power in being the person who is perceived as always rational/in control/collected/calm (even if you are seething on the inside).

  41. Raisin Walking to the Moon*

    “flouting compliance,” surely.

    But yeah, OP, I think any human would have been angry (“upset” bare minimum) in this situation, and honestly I think it was fair to say so.

    1. linger*

      If that expression was a direct quote from HR, it was another way of flaunting incompetence.

  42. Peach Parfaits Pls*

    It’s also just not something that puts you in a powerful position when you say it. Seriously concerned or taken aback are authoritative, powerful things to be, and everyone knows you’re probably mad as well.

  43. Governmint Condition*

    I’ll start by saying that in some government offices, HR does have authority to take disciplinary action, which can mean firing in certain cases.

    This feels a lot like the letter from the person who was told they were “disrespectful” when their paycheck was late. Certain professional licenses are critical to the job. If you are late renewing it by even one day, it can be automatic termination. If HR messed this up enough, LW could well have been fired. So this is just as serious an error as the paycheck one, maybe even more so.

  44. CommanderBanana*

    If I’ve gotten to the point where someone in HR is sending me emails threatening my job unless I do something that I know isn’t in accordance with the law, I think my next meeting would include a lawyer.

  45. anon here*

    All of us passive-aggressive-professional code-switchers, please put your best alternatives in the comments! Surely we can generate a useful bank of phrases (although I agree that “concerned”/”deeply concerned”/”deeply concerning” are excellent defaults here). A lot of them do put the focus back on the conduct rather than the speaker’s (emotional) response to the conduct, which is usually where you want the focus to be.

    –“I was dismayed”
    –“it struck me as unfortunate”/”unfortunately”
    –“unprofessional”
    –“reflects poorly on”
    –“I find it troubling” (I like this one a lot for OP’s situation!)
    –“difficult to believe”
    –“problematic”
    –“contrary to my understanding”
    –“I reasonably expected [x], but”
    –“Notwithstanding that [we had discussed/that I was told/etc.]”

    2. Susan*

      I think that to express just barely controlled anger (without using the words) it’s best done by being as formal and stilted as possible.

    3. online millenial*

      I like to cite chapter and verse when I’m really pissed at someone–sending a very stiff, formal email just LOADED with links to sources that indicate I am, in fact, correct. “As you can see, the licensing regulations were updated X Y 20XX and clearly state A B and C.” I work in higher ed and deploy titles as an attack at well; “Claire” becomes “Dr. Smith” in the salutation of the email when I’m angry.

      If it helps, think about going for cold anger rather than hot. Villain monologue where the bad guy is calmly, coolly stating why he’s right to kidnap the hero’s family or whatever: very precise, calm, factual, and scary. In an email, the actual written words are pretty plain, but lots of people will recognize the subtext as saying “you effed up and I’m furious.”

      You can also respond to misplaced anger of this kind (if you get this kind of email that you feel is unjustified) by completely ignoring the subtext. Just reply to the actual written text of the message as if it’s all very normal and bland.

      …writing all this out makes me realize how weird and probably unhealthy professional business communication is. Ah well.

    4. tea*

      “Surely you can’t mean that [ SOMETHING DEEPLY EFFED UP ] is standard practice for this procedure.”

      “I wouldn’t want to contradict [The Law, the CEO, the Handbook, the Licensing Regulations etc. ] in the way we tackle this issue. I hate to add more work to your plate, but could you double check that this is correct?”

      “Appalled” / “Deeply appalled” for something truly horrific.

    5. Anonymous for this one*

      Demonstrating the degree to which casual IRL conversation etiquette varies from business email etiquette, I recently wrote that I was “really not comfortable” with a proposal, which I am confident was understood to mean “you have literally heard me periodically rant for years about why this is a bad idea.”

    6. Parakeet*

      I like the various wordings here, but none of these are passive-aggressive, they’re just understated and dry. There’s no passivity involved. Passive aggression is aggression that’s not head on, like going behind someone’s back. This is just different phrasing, conveying its emotion in icy stiltedness.

  46. NotHannah*

    As a manager who was sent to anger management training (10 years ago now), I feel this, so much. I agree, as always, with Alison here. I did not grow up in a white collar environment, but I have worked white collar jobs my entire professional life.
    No matter how justified, anger doesn’t work for me at work, and I believe that goes double for any other women.
    For anyone with a similar history, I found this book really helpful. I also like to use the Britishism “extraordinary” to express my deep displeasure.
    https://www.amazon.com/Limbo-Blue-Collar-Roots-White-Collar-Dreams/dp/0471714399

  47. Tradd*

    I will use wording such as “I am extremely unhappy.” I deal with a lot of non-native English speakers (I’m in international transportation). This is a phrase EVERYONE understands.

    If I’m dealing with folks here in the US who I have a good relationship with I will use “I am a very unhappy camper.”

  48. Molly Coddler*

    as an admin, i am personally sick and angry that i have to use coddling words to get people to do their job so i can do mine. i coddle, i say nice words instead of the truth, and it’s humiliating when i know the job better than the person i’m coddling to do it. just my 2 cent rant. thank you.

  49. JSPA*

    put strong emotions or descriptors on the situation (or on non-human nouns).

    The lack of diligence is upsetting; you [in contrast] are merely “dismayed.”

    Repeatedly receiving bad information, not to mention threats to your employment, is deeply, even shockingly, problematic. Doubly so, if it’s done while you repeatedly supply correct information. You [however, merely] only hope that, moving forward, others will not be needlessly caught in any equivalent situation.

    Having no clear path for further recourse is, frankly, a logistical nightmare. You [however, merely] request and expect that they will inform you how one can reach out beyond HR, if the official HR chain leaves you mired in misinformation, and dealing with job-threatening language, for months.

    You strive to give fair value for money, so the idea of being blocked from filing your certification, which would leave you drawing a paycheck while legally unable to work, has [merely] been dismaying.

    Imagine you are meditating, while ignoring the fire ant nest under your cushion.

  51. Blue kitty*

    Does anyone else struggle with all the suggested “professional responses” sounding exactly like heavy sarcasm? Like you are deliberately provoking the recipient by parroting parody speak like in The Office or the Dilbert comic strip?

    I don’t understand how it wouldn’t make someone more angry to receive such a response.

    1. online millenial*

      That is, unfortunately, kind of the point. US professionalism hinges on this kind of sideways talking, where you never actually acknowledge any real emotions but just hint at them in very specific ways. There’s a reason why “as per my last email” is commonly understood to be fighting words. Yeah, it’s gonna make the other person angry, but just like you, they don’t get to express it, they have to reply in this passive-aggressive professional language. This whole conversation has made me realize just how messed up it all is!

      1. Lab Boss*

        My favorite is “I think I’m misunderstanding something here,” which clearly means “I think you’re so wrong you’re barely even talking sense, why don’t you try again?”

        1. Because white collar culture sucks*

          OK. Serious (not sarcastic or angry) question from someone who does not understand this kind of “sideways” talking. “I think I’m misunderstanding something here” does not clearly mean your second sentence to me. I’ve used that sentence several times when I sincerely believed I was misunderstanding something and wanted to know! What should I say to express that?

          Honestly… say what you mean and mean what you say!

          1. Lab Boss*

            The problem is that standard white-collar politeness means I CAN’T say what I mean, which is “you’re doing the exact opposite of what everyone agreed to last time and you’re clearly just grasping at straws to justify it.” That might be what I think, and it might be what’s actually happening, and it might even be more efficient to be that blunt- but saying it will leave me in OP’s boat, because now the discussion is about me being angry.

            I would say that context matters. When We’re having a discussion about something complex and I say “I might be misunderstanding, but what about XYZ?” it will be taken sincerely. When the meeting is more confrontational and I say the same thing in a firm tone, the context makes it clear that I’m politely saying “what you’re saying is not in line with reality.”

            1. Because white collar culture sucks*

              Thank you! Sincerely. That makes some sense.

              I will say that I don’t think “You’re doing the exact opposite of what everyone agreed to last time.” is impolite – though maybe it is in the white-collar world. If that’s what they are doing, then it’s not rude (or angry or mean) to say so. To me, anyway. I won’t say why they are doing it because I don’t know that.

              Maybe one of the things I struggle with is that I find it extremely rude to “hide” what you mean or what you’re feeling and then use that against me or someone else. It feels like laying a trap or playing gotcha. And the idea that it’s somehow “polite” to do that makes less than zero sense. To me.

              1. Lab Boss*

                Your interpretation is a fair one. I think it just comes down to being “one of those things.” It’s just… How people talk in a white collar professional environment. My professional development was slowed for a while because I would say things like “no, you’re wrong about that” or “that’s not what you said last time,” because it was straightforward, and that got read as “hostile” (as I said in another comment, my large physical build and deep voice may have also contributed to that). I had to learn to say “I think we should consider…” or “I believe the direction we’d agreed on was…” or other workdarounds.

                1. Because white collar culture sucks*

                  Thank you! I appreciate the time you took to explain that to me.

                  I would like to say that I’m sorry your build and voice make people assume hostility or other negative things about you. That doesn’t feel fair to me, particularly since you seem very patient and willing to help others.

                  Hopefully I can put what you’ve learned into action for myself. Thanks again.

          2. JSPA*

            I use, “I feel like we are talking past each other. I can’t tell if we’re using the same words to mean different things, or different words to mean the same thing.

            “So let me start over, and I’ll flag where I’m confused.”

            this could be something like how “nuclear” conjures very different graphic images (and nearly opposite denotations and connotations and implications) to a cell biologist vs a post-apocalyptic video game designer.

            But it can also be, “you are providing information that presupposes basic knowledge, and I have no such knowledge.” (or vice versa.)

            [longer example follows]

            “When you say that I have to pick a narglefratz option during the designated narglefratz option period, or I’ll be narglefratz- deficient;

            “Note that I have never had access to a narglefratz option, and don’t know what it’s for. With that in mind,

            “1. Is “no narglefratz needed” an option?

            “2. If so, do people ever opt “no narglefratz”? How?

            “3. What sorts of expenses or events are covered, in general, by narglefratz coverage?

            “4. is there a new option period yearly? Or is this only once, during onboaring after the merger? Or something else?

            “5. is there some sort of demerit or punishment or fine for being ‘deficient’?”

          3. Laura LL*

            The reason this type of stuff is so frustrating is that what things mean is context-dependent. I’ll say that I think I’m misunderstanding something both if I’m actually confused AND if the person has, say, just told me to do the opposite of what they’d told me to do yesterday.

    2. Part time lab tech*

      Recently, I had a situation where a clinician transferred back from a different site. Essentially she emailed me to enter something into the database that is her responsibility. Me, I read that as a training issue. The other admin read it as asking us to do her job for her and was irritated.
      So my reply said, sorry I’m “confused”, I can’t see those entries in (subdept database) and cc her boss and mine when it continued. I honestly believe it was an adjustment issue rather than a laziness issue.
      The two way read is kind of the point of this language. My colleagues knew I meant “You’re doing it wrong” and if she didn’t understand, she could check with her trainer.
      Would it have been faster to have a direct conversation? Sure, but I am going to ask her supervisor to train the clinician on her clinical notes rather than attempt to do so myself without authority.

    3. fhqwhgads*

      Thing is here, while it’s entirely reasonable OP was angry, it was also sort of unnecessary to state it? It’s also unnecessary to state some other phrasing of the emotion. Humans are human of course and when feeling strong emotions often inclined to say so, but whether one agrees or disagrees that outright saying “I’m angry” is professional or not, it’s not especially helpful.
      The HR person fucked up. What does OP want to accomplish? Make it clear that person fucked up? Make sure people above know about it? Make sure it doesn’t happen again? Make sure any kind of documentation that might indicate OP ever did anything wrong is removed since they were not in fact at all wrong? Phrase the message in a way that aims to accomplish that. Let the wrongness of the situation speak for itself.
      I get that the question is “was that unprofessional?” because that’s what the way the boss described it. But I think a better takeaway is some people might find it unprofessional, others may not, but either way it’s not productive. And it’s worth not saying because of that.

  52. Looper*

    I agree that this is a weird but common “rule”, and maybe some things were left out of the letter, but did your manager back you up during any of this? Or did he just witness this all go down and then call you out for saying you were angry? Because that would be the bigger issue to me. I would also keep an eye on who he “coaches” in this manner and who seems to get to do whatever/act however they want. That an HR rep threatened the employment of one of his team over their own incompetence and he had nothing to say about that is of concern.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      If the boss backed him up at the time, but then a year later whilst in review mode said “Oh, yeah I forgot to say at the time, but there are better words to use than “angry” when it’s in writing” … that’s fine, it’s all just advice and mentorship from someone who went to bat for you. If however this is all they have had to say about the matter, then it’s really troubling that’s what they focused on.

  53. Susan*

    Back in the days of business letters sent by snail mail, I wrote to a government agency and intentionally used over the top language. I was “shocked and appalled”. And that got a response, finally, a year after my initial inquiry.

    And it got to be an in-joke at the office, to be shocked and appalled after the least delay.

    1. anon here*

      I think “appalled” is pretty usable. Like “disappointed” and “unacceptable,” I think there’s a connotation of authority that can be very helpful. (But know your audience! I would never tell my supervisor or anyone above me that something is “unacceptable,” and I probably wouldn’t use “appalled,” either. “Disappointed” can be used for both parent and child, however, and so retains some plausible deniability when used by reports to their superiors.)

  54. MHG*

    WOW this timing was incredible as I’ve been called aggressive twice today for voicing concerns about being given what I need to do my job.

  55. blah*

    Was the HR rep’s manager ever included in any of these messages? As soon as she threatened to post my job, you’d bet her boss would be included in every single message going forth.

  56. Brain the Brian*

    Counterpoint to the advice: I’ve been called out before for being *too* passive-aggressive in my emails using wording like AAM’s suggestions here. Where I work, I think people would appreciate the directness if I said I was angry instead of trying to avoid it through corporate clichés. Of course, as I’ve posted before, my company is not exactly normal when it comes to internal communication… or really much else… so YMMV.

    1. Tradd*

      I am incapable of being anything but direct. I don’t play games. I’m polite, but I am direct.

    2. fhqwhgads*

      You don’t really need to be indirect. There are plenty of direct things to say in this situation that address the situation and don’t involve directly stating your emotions. Nothing wrong with having them, but I just don’t see how it helps.
      “This cannot be permitted to happen again”. Probably indicates someone’s pissed, but that’s a side effect, not the goal. The point is about the action anyway.

      1. Brain the Brian*

        The problem with that where I work is that I actually don’t have the authority to say “this cannot be permitted.” Saying so would imply that I have authority I don’t, and that’s a much bigger deal than simply stating my own emotions. We’re a weird workplace, I know.

        1. fhqwhgads*

          That’s weird. I suppose I don’t technically have the authority either, but that statement would be taken more like “surely we’re all reasonable here and surely we can all see how unacceptable this is” than asserting authority you don’t have.

  57. Roseyposey*

    So much of the cultural normativity at play here is predicated on Western (and specifically British) notions of “gentility”. The idea that being restrained and delicate denotes intellectual and moral strength. It really saddens me that these norms are so intertwined with the idea of being “professional” nowadays, when the two aren’t inherently linked. Perhaps if anger weren’t so verboten, the employee would have felt more empowered to raise the HR person’s conduct with their supervisors at an earlier stage and nipped this whole thing in the bud. I just question whether these norms are really serving us at this point.

    1. RVA Cat*

      We dance around the fact that at least half of work communication would be telling people like this HR tool to go f*** themselves.

  58. Sparkles McFadden*

    I always think of emails as a list of action items. So “I’m angry” is not a useful thing to put in there. What *is* useful is a list of all of the ways HR screwed up and how your job was threatened because of the HR errors. You are outlining all of this because you are trying to make sure that the things that happened to you never, ever happen to anyone else.

    Believe me, a long list of specific HR screw ups, followed by a statement such as “I am concerned as to how this could have gone on for so long and suggest you need to review HR processes and procedures” will be correctly translated into “I am so angry I want to smash my keyboard into your head” by anyone who reads it.

    That said, it was kind of crappy for your supervisor to bring it up in a review. I think it warrants a mention at the time of the event, as in a “Just a word of advice…” sort of thing. I’m sorry you went through all of that and I hope the HR person gets everything she so richly deserves.

  59. Lunar Caustic*

    I try to think of it this way. Most people are extremely reluctant to admit that they have messed up, especially in a professional environment where that can have serious consequences, deserved and/or undeserved. So when you are in a situation like this one, it is quite likely that the other person will take the path of least self-reflection and look for any ammo whatsoever to try to turn blame back on you and avoid accepting that they screwed up or just deflect some of the criticism from themselves. Your job is to deny them that ammo and to shield yourself with icy, smooth professionalism so that they can’t find any purchase to attack you with. Cynical? Yes. But taking a pragmatic mindset helps me feel less like “I must deny my humanity in order to deserve help” and more “this is human nature and this is what I can do to make it work for me”.

  60. Sindy*

    Could OP have been more conscientious with their words? Yes. Would they have worded their email in a different way in a perfect world? Yes. Was the supervisor out of line to be prattling about the OP’s word usage after OP’s job was threatened by an HR employee that ended up being not just wrong but super wrong? Absolutely. Getting snippy over OP’s word choice after HR wanted to get the OP fired over HR’s mistakes is flat out laughable.

  61. bottomless pit*

    You are completely justified in your feelings. HR was an asshat. That said, I agree with Allison in taking the personal feelings out of it. Instead of “I’m angry, mad, sad, upset, etc.” I say “it is concerning, frustrating, upsetting, untenable, etc”. This is not to coddle, but to turn it on them. It’s not how they made me feel, but about how what they did is epically wrong.

  62. Elizabeth*

    I’m horrified by the repeated bad information provided by HR. That was completely unacceptable.

    But.

    In many healthcare settings, HR is responsible for assuring any employee whose position requires a license or certification actually has them. If someone’s credentials expire, they can require that the employee be taken off the schedule until the issue is addresser. If the issue isn’t resolved, they can discharge the individual from employment. It’s a matter of compliance to assure that all employees meet the legal requirements for their jobs. A nurse who doesn’t have a license shouldn’t be touching a patient, for example.

    1. New Jack Karyn*

      Sure–but a competent HR would be aware of changes to the state’s licensure requirements, and work with the candidate to ensure everything was squared away.

      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        I could understand that since the reg recently changed, HR might not have been in the know yet. It shouldn’t happen, but it does. HR learns about new laws and regs through a number of different sources depending on the situation. But especially when LW started pushing back on the information, if not before, HR should have paused and confirmed whether the information that they had was still accurate.

        1. RVA Cat*

          That’s what a reasonable person would do. But HR got in *their* feelings and saw the OP’s pushback as Insubordination and doubled down on Respect My Authoritay!

  63. Cookie Monster*

    Answers like this are why I love this blog. So nuanced, well explained, empathetic…I wish more people spoke and wrote like this.

  64. Petty Betty*

    Ooh. I’m deeply concerned by the multiple missteps and grievous mishandling of this situation on HR’s side, even with repeated attempts on OP’s part to rectify the lack of knowledge. I would feel apprehensive about this HR representative’s further handling of OP’s file/work without supervision for fear of retaliation after her threat to replace me for her own proven mistakes. It already feels slightly retaliatory when OP is getting reprimanded for expressing anger at the situation when she was explicitly threatened with firing for the HR rep’s unwillingness to update herself on the licensure requirements and steadfast insistence on doing things The Wrong Way.

    This feels like the situation needs to be written out very concisely and documented that yes, OP is being written up for having a very valid emotion about a situation in which she was threatened for knowing the correct information and was being jerked around and given the wrong pathways to do something she needed in order to stay in compliance with her job, yet blamed for the whole affair as if she were the problem all along. That is some serious manipulation on HR’s (and management’s) part.

  65. Orange You Glad*

    I use “frustrated” a lot when stuff like this happens. And remember, in a work setting, you aren’t angry at the individual, you are frustrated at the situation.

    I deal with confidently incorrect people every day. I may be cursing their stupidity to myself at home, but written communication always points out what is wrong with the situation or I humble myself as not understanding what is causing the miscommunication.

    1. Heffalump*

      I often say “frustrated.” If I want to crank it up a bit more without using the A-word, I say “perturbed” or “annoyed.”

  66. Just Here for the Llama Grooming*

    Lots of helpful information here, beginning, as always, with Allison. I don’t have more to offer in that vein.
    Instead, OP, on your behalf, may I say that I am volcanically p*$$ed off on your behalf at the HR person, who was arrogant and belittling to you and who e%%ed up a task it was their responsibility to know how to do. I can also unload more lava on your manager for choosing to finger-wag at a violation of office norms on your part instead of asking for feedback about how everyone, you included (for again the decidedly less serious problem!!), can make sure this never happens again. I hope your life from here on out includes better colleagues.

  67. Mango Freak*

    While Alison’s advice is probably wise, I think the HR person was so out of line, and specifically taking/making things personal, that calmly labeling one’s anger should be acceptable in the workplace.

    I personally might’ve said either “angry” or “upset,” though I probably would’ve said either on a call. On a call I might’ve in fact said “furious.” I would’ve wanted my righteous indignation to be audible. I would’ve wanted to impress upon people how unacceptable this was–that it was an attack on me personally and as someone trying to do my job for the company WELL.

    But then I’m at a point in my career where I’m very, “This is who I am, I have high expectations, I will make your life much easier 99% of the time but in return you had BETTER pay attention when I need backup.”

  68. TheLoaf*

    OP, I’ve used “deeply unhappy” to convey anger at an injustice. I’ve never had a problem with that phrase and I know it gets the message across.

  69. Elbe*

    I agree that telling coworkers point-blank that you’re angry goes against professional norms. Unless the LW has a history of aggressive behavior (or unless the overall content of the email was threatening), though, I think I probably would have let a one-time misstep slide because of how horrible the situation was for them. Unless a lot is missing from the letter, it seems like a very strange thing to focus on.

    I would be interested to know how the company handled the HR rep. Her behavior was FAR more inappropriate and I have concerns about the LW needing to continue working with this person. I think that the LW would be well within their rights to request information about what, if any, consequences the rep faced and how this was resolved. If they’re actioning the LW’s word choice, but not the HR rep threatening someone’s job (!!!) over false information, that’s a huge indication that this company is not trustworthy.

  70. Sneaky Squirrel*

    Telling your co-workers that you’re angry at them generally isn’t considered acceptable, but I think that’s because we acknowledge that everyone is doing their job to the best of their ability and what we do isn’t intended to be personal. But your HR rep made it personal and I think it’s telling that your supervisor was willing to raise issue with you than they were willing to deal with how the whole situation unfolded.

    I’m angry for you about your situation. Your HR representative told you the wrong information, threatened your livelihood when you tried to course correct, and had 0 remorse about their mistakes.

    But where was the supervisor in this fight? Did they just stand back the whole time? It sounds like they stood idly by leaving you to deal with the issue on their own and want to take issue with how you handled it instead of giving you any supports.

  71. Pete*

    If someone ever wrote “concerned” I read it as “concerned.” “Dismayed” would be probably be read as closer to “anger,” but it’s nowhere close. This is all news to me. No one has ever told me. Maybe this unwritten and/or unspoken rule needs to be shared with more people.

    [TherapySession] Meanwhile, I’ve been angry my whole life. I often use that word at work. Anger is my warm and comfy blanket. Yes, I’m most content when angry. I’ve always thought I was the lovable curmudgeon who had only righteous anger. Truly, no one could ever say I was wrong to hold that emotion.

    When I was in my 20’s & 30’s colleagues weren’t concerned about me. Management knew I was no threat, even as I was figuratively punching-up at them most of the time. As I grew grayer and found myself at new jobs, I went from being seen as the cute kid with a little anger issue to the angry, old man–not the one who might now just be shaking a fist at the sky.

    The last decade of employment has not been fun because of anger. There has been therapy, and the best I’ve learned so far is to not be surprised and to not care. The therapist is not happy with the latter, but it’s best I can do so far without drugs. Life is disappointing, but I’m frightening fewer people.

    You’re welcome. [/TherapySession]

  72. My Useless Two Cents*

    Concerned is NOT a synonym for Angry. If a co-worker ***threatens*** me, it is going in writing that I am angry. To me anger implies I expect consequences for whoever did the threatening. Concerned means I expect to be placated. Having a feeling does not mean unprofessional. Acting out based on that anger is the unprofessionalism.

    Also, the pedantic in me hates the recommendation that OP is “stunned” that the correct process worked, and worked quickly. Why would they by surprised? That is not stunned, unless you are assuming that it is being read with a sh*t-ton of passive aggressiveness (which has been mentioned in these boards is also “not professional” many, many times).
    “When I followed state guidelines, the issue was quickly resolved.” The “as expected” is implied but very obviously there.

  73. teensyslews*

    Should you have said angry? Probably not, for all the reasons Alison stated. But I also feel like your manager is not being a great manager here! If it was that unprofessional, it should have been addressed in the moment and not held in reserve until your annual review. Also, where was your supervisor in all of this? You would think they would also be angry that HR threatened to terminate one of their employees! There is a small lesson to be learned here about expressing emotion at work and a bigger lesson about whether or not your manager is as supportive as you need.

  74. 15 Pieces of Flair*

    Corporate speak is stiff and evasive at best and largely rooted in a sexist and classist history. I have to frame it as though I’m writing for a character in a universe with its own lexicon.

    Add HR’s manager to the thread. “I’m very concerned with the factually inaccurate and unprofessional responses from [HR]. As documented in this chain, [HR] repeatedly cited inaccurate requirements and forms for my professional license renewal. When I independently found and cited the correct documentation, [HR] threatened my job.

    As a representative of [company], I expect HR to be knowledgeable and tactful. I’m raising this to [manager]’s attention to ensure appropriate action is taken to prevent further incidents.”

  75. RereadAndEdit*

    I use taken aback a lot. But it needs to be followed by a dispassionate listing of why. Especially in writing.

    I’ll rewrite stuff like this 5-6-7-8 times. If I can I’ll let it sit overnight. If I can do so without violating privacy or corporate IP I may read the important ones to one of a handful of people with whom I’m close. These types of communications are fraught and should be treated as a big deal by anyone who values their job. Especially if being sent to a boss, HR, or a customer.

  76. Bruce*

    At this point I think LW could have a heart to heart with their manager. They were badly mistreated, expressing anger was a natural response to such treatment. Is the HR person getting off with no feedback? LW may want to phrase at “given how severely I was provoked, what do YOU think I should have said?”

  77. Boof*

    Honestly i think the use was justified here but you know your environment best; is only passive aggressive communication acceptable? The wrong retort “no, threatening my job was unprofessional; this is a natural consequence of how you’ve mishandled my situation”. Buuut perhaps the slightly softer approach of telling your boss, or grandboss, or HR grandboss “it’s really inappropriate how i was threatened and repeatedly forced in the wrong direction“ and if they dare to bring up “but you said the a-word! How unbecoming!” Keep redirecting back to the actual problem and maybe inquire what words they would use to describe it, then say “i hope this isn’t repeated but i’ll keep that in mind”. Idk but i figure you are valuable and management is going with path of least resistance here; don’t be the path of least resistance :)

  78. TheBunny*

    I generally go with frustrated and even then I’m not frustrated at the person but with the situation.

    I get my point across but do so without actually saying I’m angry.

  79. HappySummer*

    I use “disappointed” in emails to my daughter’s school when I am justifiably livid. It gets the point across and places blame on the situation without directly pointing the finger at a person. I think it would be equally effective language in the workplace.

  80. AnonHRForThisOne*

    A thought about why we use different words than angry or mad.

    I’m in HR and while the calls like this usually start with my team, there was a time in my career where I fielded calls from hourly or entry level employees who would say things like “I’m mad at my boss” because mad conveys big emotion and major upset.

    There’s value in using words that are more descriptive. When people are angry they say things like “I’m mad”. OK awesome. You’re mad. Until I get some additional nouns there’s nothing I can do to help you.

    But if that same person is forced (sometimes by work norms) to actually describe the mad, that is actually useful.

    In OPs case the reason for being angry was easy to find, but that’s not always true. So telling me you are frustrated or worried does help me sort of know where to start.

    It’s not perfect but it’s something.

  81. RCB*

    I know this will not be a popular opinion but here goes: You were right, they were wrong, so they don’t get to tell you how you feel about the situation and what words you use to express it.

  82. Hengabecka*

    Ask a British Person at your service! I would have said I was “rather disappointed” by the way in which I had been misadvised over an extended period and that this caused “uncertainty and some distress”. It was “somewhat confusing” to receive feedback that “sounded very much like threats to fire me without cause”. I would be anxious to “clarify the professional process”, and “where responsibility lies” to keep up to date with the legal requirements – just so I know what I need to do in the future to avoid similar problems. Snarky in an icily polite manner is second nature when you have worked in UK local government for years, and can be a malicious sort-of fun when you are really furious!

    Having said that, I agree with everyone saying that the acceptability of expressing anger is hideously gendered. It’s so irritating to be apologised to because something ‘upset’ me – and I have on a couple of occasions, replied with ‘I’m not upset, I am angry. That wasn’t an acceptable way to treat me’. It usually leads to an awkward silence, but sometimes I just feel like kicking back against the trope that women are not allowed to have anger, only soft emotions, or that women who are angry are always out of control.

  83. CubeFarmer*

    This has always, unfortunately, been my typical experience with HR. They don’t know the latest information about a process or a law, and they seems to stand in the way of making the organization run more smoothly.

    “I was disappointed that the internal instructions with which I was provided and pressured to use did not accurately reflect the latest requirements, and despite my attempts to remedy the situation, this disconnect continued. At one point, I believe my employment was threatened because I refused to use this incorrect process. This added significant time to my efforts to comply with the regulatory process move forward with my position with the company.”

  85. Flannery*

    How about — instead of “angry” — most seriously displeased?

    (Thank you, Lady Catherine de Bourgh)

  86. EngineerMom*

    OP, are you a woman?

    Because from my own experience, people get REALLY uncomfortable when women actually express anger, especially if they use the word “anger” specifically.

    Yes, it’s frustrating and BS. But very, very common.

Comments are closed.