Loren Terveen

For the second, I'd recommend trying treat the concept of anger as a deeply social, contextual, non-neutral state. We don't all have the same right to be angry, and people who do include, for example, Black women who have been discriminated against for centuries in the US.

So even though you might feel that you don't have a need to be angry (in the workplace, or other contexts), that might also just reflect your position in the world. That may not reflect your colleagues' positions in the world and we should give space for different experiences.

I'm not an expert on this and am wary of speaking on behalf of others groups. But I also think pointing it out is important, especially to folks who are senior good people who can be allies for others. (ie you!)

You are making important and reasonable points, almost all of which I agree with. I will reiterate, however, that I am unsure that *expressing anger explicitly* actually is an effective way to get things done. Do certain people have a right to *feel more anger*? Yes, of course.

But again, whether expressing anger in a workplace is *effective* is a separate question. I'll say (again) maybe there are contexts in which expressing anger is necessary -- otherwise, people won't pay attention, won't consider it urgent. But in other contexts...

Expressing the anger (that one feels) just may not be an effective way to get heard and create change. At least that's how I feel.

If people have spent months, years, centuries trying to be heard and create change, to no avail, then it's the systems that are not effective rather than that expressions of anger are not effective.

I do understand and generally agree that in workplace communication, many kinds of communication don't require or benefit from anger. But it may be harmful to silence it from people who have a right to be angry.