Pause the exchange if it is safe, then discuss the work concern and the harmful conduct separately. A coworker can invite change while leaving responsibility for repair with the person who caused harm.
What can you say while the outburst is happening?
When an outburst starts, pause the argument rather than trying to settle the work issue over raised voices. You might say: “I want to understand the delay you’re worried about. I can’t continue while I’m being shouted at. Let’s pause and return to the issue later.” This acknowledges the concern and sets a limit on the conduct without labeling the person.
Treat that wording as a practical option, not a proven de-escalation formula. Keep it brief: repeating a boundary can become another argument about tone, while a clear pause gives both people a chance to return to facts. If there is a threat, physical aggression, or someone is prevented from leaving, step away and use the workplace safety process. A peer conversation makes sense only when it feels safe and fits your role. If the person cannot engage, end the exchange; return later only if conditions allow. You do not need to mediate between the coworker and everyone affected in the room. If others witnessed the incident, they can give their own account through the right channel.
Sources: Help for the Holidays: Preventing Fatigue, Violence, and Stress in Retail
Why discuss the work issue and the outburst separately?
Once the exchange is calm, assess the complaint and the conduct as two questions. Was a deadline or workload problem real? What did the outburst do to the conversation or the people present? A missed deadline may need attention even when the way it was raised was unacceptable. The emotion itself cannot establish what happened, and a harsh reaction does not prove the complaint was false. Keep the two threads visible in your notes or conversation: what needs to change in the task, and what needs to change in how people discuss it. Otherwise, the work concern may disappear into an argument about manners, or the conduct may disappear behind the urgency of the task.
Jiang and colleagues examined workplace anger in four studies: two online scenario experiments and two employee field studies. Appropriate anger expression tended to receive more favorable observer judgments than deviant expression; an apology could improve perceived warmth and leader emergence. Comparisons with suppressed anger varied by suppression type and cultural context. The studies measured judgments, not whether an apology changed later conduct or whether a coworker intervention prevented harm. They therefore help explain how displays may be interpreted, while the response study speaks more directly to reported workplace outcomes.
A separate set of four preregistered US experiments by Porat and Levy Paluck (N=3,852) found that workers expressing anger were rated less competent and given lower status than workers expressing sadness or no emotion. These scenario judgments show that anger can carry reputational costs; they do not explain the cause of an actual colleague’s anger. Taken together, the studies support caution about both dismissing a work concern because of its delivery and treating one outburst as a complete account of someone’s character.
Sources: Effects of coworker anger expression on leader emergence: The mediating roles of perceived warmth and competence and the compensating effect of anger apology; Anger at work
What kind of response supports change and keeps accountability?
For a safe follow-up, describe what you observed and its effect, then ask for a specific repair. For example: “In yesterday’s planning meeting, you called my update useless and raised your voice. I couldn’t explain the dependency, and we left without a decision. What issue were you trying to raise? I need us to discuss it without insults. Can we correct the decision and agree how to flag a delay next time?” Keep the account to words, actions, and work consequences rather than guessing motive. Name who will correct a practical consequence and when, if that is needed.
Geddes and Stickney offer the closest direct evidence about responses to workplace anger. Full-time US employees recalled incidents they had witnessed and felt had gone too far. Supportive coworker or manager responses were associated with favorable change in the problematic situation, compared with sanctions or doing nothing. The retrospective reports do not show that support caused improvement, and the accessible publisher record does not provide enough detail to estimate the association. The finding is also bounded to incidents witnesses considered beyond workplace norms. It does not say that every supportive response is helpful, that support should come from the person targeted, or that formal consequences are never warranted. A coworker may be able to help clarify a process problem while a manager or other responsible channel handles conduct that affects safety, policy, or multiple people.
This evidence favors constructive engagement as an option for a bounded, safe incident, not as a rule for every case. Support can keep the work issue open for discussion while the person who caused harm remains responsible for acknowledging the impact and changing the behavior. An apology may reopen dialogue, but the Jiang study’s observer judgments do not establish repair. Look for follow-through: correction of an affected decision, a clear acknowledgment, and a different way of raising the next disagreement. These are observable signs to discuss, not a checklist validated by the cited studies. If the person disputes your account, stay with the specific event and its impact; agreement about motive is not a prerequisite for setting a boundary or requesting a work correction. If you cannot agree on next steps, bring in someone with responsibility for the decision or the conduct.
Sources: The trouble with sanctions: Organizational responses to deviant anger displays at work; Effects of coworker anger expression on leader emergence: The mediating roles of perceived warmth and competence and the compensating effect of anger apology
When should you involve someone else?
A direct conversation may fit an isolated incident when you feel safe, the other person can take part, and your role permits it. Repeated outbursts, threats, discriminatory or degrading remarks, retaliation, a major power difference, or fear for someone’s safety call for an appropriate workplace channel. Follow policy and involve a manager, HR contact, union representative, or safety lead as appropriate; serious misconduct should not become a target’s private coaching assignment.
NIOSH advises workers to report perceived threats or violence through existing workplace policies and not to argue with someone making threats or becoming violent. Its cited guidance addresses retail settings, so it supports the safety decision for threats or violence rather than a general claim about ordinary workplace disagreements. When risk is present, step away and use the process. Retail guidance does not define every workplace’s reporting route, so use your organization’s policy and local procedures rather than assuming a particular department is responsible.
Use three practical checks: Was this isolated? Can the colleague discuss it calmly? Can you raise it safely within your role? If not, seek support. A record, if your policy calls for one, should stick to date, words or actions, witnesses, and practical effects rather than a diagnosis or speculation. If the checks support a direct conversation, return to the work concern and ask the person who caused harm to own a concrete repair. The private 32-item Emotional Skills Profile at /assessment offers educational reflection on recent habits and scenario judgments, including your own response under pressure. It cannot determine fault or change another person; use it to choose a behavior of your own to observe next time.
Sources: Help for the Holidays: Preventing Fatigue, Violence, and Stress in Retail
Questions readers ask
Should I acknowledge the reason a coworker is angry?
You can acknowledge the work concern without agreeing with the outburst. Ask what needs attention after the exchange is safe to continue, while naming the conduct that needs to stop.
What if the coworker apologizes afterward?
An apology can help reopen the conversation, but look for a concrete repair and different behavior in later disagreements. Research on anger apologies measured observer judgments, not durable behavior change.
Should I handle a repeated outburst privately?
Not automatically. Repetition, threats, discriminatory behavior, retaliation, power differences, or safety concerns are reasons to use the appropriate workplace channel rather than take on private coaching.
Can an EQ test tell me how to respond to a specific coworker?
An EQ reflection tool may help you examine your own habits and possible practice goals. It cannot determine fault, predict a coworker’s behavior, or establish what caused a particular outburst.
Sources
- The trouble with sanctions: Organizational responses to deviant anger displays at work
The accessible abstract reports that full-time US employees described witnessed workplace anger displays they felt went too far, and that supportive coworker or management responses (compared with sanctions or inaction) were associated with favorable change. It does not establish causation or provide enough accessible detail to estimate the association.
- Effects of coworker anger expression on leader emergence: The mediating roles of perceived warmth and competence and the compensating effect of anger apology
The journal abstract reports two online scenario experiments and two field surveys; appropriate anger compared with deviant anger positively affected leader-emergence likelihood through perceived competence and warmth, and apology was associated with improved observer impressions. Effects versus suppressed anger depended on suppression type and cultural context. The abstract does not support the article's individual sample-size details.
- Anger at work
Princeton's accessible research record reproduces the abstract: four preregistered US experiments (N=3,852) found angry workers were consistently viewed as less competent and received lower status than workers expressing sadness or no emotion. These were experiments on judgments, not investigations of actual workplace incidents.
- Help for the Holidays: Preventing Fatigue, Violence, and Stress in Retail
NIOSH describes workplace violence as including threats, abuse, harassment, intimidation and physical assaults, and advises workers to report perceived threats or acts of violence through existing workplace policies and avoid arguing with someone making threats or becoming violent. This is NIOSH guidance and does not verify the section's statements specifically attributed to OSHA.
Apply it to the real situation
Notice your response before the next difficult conversation
From this guide: The article offers a boundary and follow-up approach; your own habit under pressure may still be unclear.
A difficult exchange can reveal where you pause, name an impact, ask for context, or set a limit. The private 32-item Emotional Skills Profile helps you reflect on recent emotional habits and judgments in authored scenarios, then identify a behavior to examine. Use it as a starting point for self-reflection, not as a verdict about a coworker or a promise about what will happen next.