What counts as respect?
worthwhile language advice
Have a question about language at work? You can send it to admin@worthwhileconsulting.com. All questions are anonymized.
“In my new role I report up to the VP of [redacted]...we have serious cross-functionality issues and there are way too many silos… I have made it a priority to talk with other departments to get us information we need.
But my VP sometimes gets angry when I share this information with him. Last week we were meeting about a project and I told him that [information from another department] shows we’re likely to miss an upcoming deadline. I suggested we push it back.
He got all huffy and told me I have a problem with respect. I need to respect him more. I’m being disrespectful.
But I’m pretty sure I’m being respectful. I’m careful when I speak and I don’t interrupt him. I’m not sarcastic or rude and I run my emails to him through ChatGPT to check for tone.
Any insights on what he means by respect? Is there something I should change?”
The big issue here is that you are using respect in two different ways. Your VP has one meaning in mind, and you have another. So, we’ve got a communication clash going on — the fact that it isthe same word is disguising that you mean two different things.
I’m sorry to say that this may end up causing you real problems unless you can talk it out. (And honestly? I’m not optimistic.)
Defining respect
The VP is using respect in the sense of feel or show deferential regard for. And the deference is key.
In the scenario for this definition of respect, the focus is on hierarchy and authority. I’ll call this the Deference Scenario. Here,
Person A
is above
Person B
In the Deference Scenario, B’s behavior should always follow the rules for how you talk and interact with someone above you. Someone who has more power and authority than you. (And probably someone who is not only your senior in rank, but also your senior in age.)
For example:
A should take up more conversational space.
A can give commands.
A can evaluate B’s performance (“Good job!”).
A can say “no” without having to explain.
By contrast:
B should talk less than A.
B should never give commands to A.
B should not evaluate A’s performance (“Good job!”).
B can’t say “no” to A without giving a (probably) long and detailed explanation as to why.
This way of defining respect is at play in many real-world scenarios where there are strong hierarchies:
A: parent — B: child
A: teacher — B: student
A: army captain — B: army private
And in some cases:
A: boss — B: report
This scenario generates statements like:
“Because I said so.”
“I’m the authority here.”
“How dare you talk back to me!”
This is why when his report is disagreeing with current plans, dissenting, and making suggestions for changes, the VP is interpreting this behavior as disrespectful.
In the Deference Scenario, the report isn’t licensed to behave this way.
Calling the VP’s authoritative declarations, plans, and timelines into question is inappropriate. It is “talking back.” It is calling his seniority and authority into question.
For the VP, this is insubordinate and bad behavior.
Another version of respect
Our reader is almost certainly working with a different definition of respect.
In this version, a person is treated as if they are important, valuable, and should be taken seriously.
Here, hierarchy and power dynamics are not the focus. It doesn’t really matter if Person A is above Person B or not — they can just as easily be on the same level.
What is important is that one person is putting time, care, and attention into their treatment of another. We can call this the Meeting Needs Scenario.
Let’s say Person A is the object of respect. How should Person B behave with them? Person B will prioritize taking their real and potential needs into account.
What kind of information or supplies does Person A need?
How can you speak to them to show you hold them in high esteem?
How can you spend your time and energy to make sure their requirements are met?
In this Meeting Needs Scenario, our reader is being very respectful of his VP. He is taking into consideration what the VP needs to be successful:
important information that he hasn’t had access to previously, because this information may affect his timelines, project scope, and other decisions
analysis of this information out of respect for his time, so he doesn’t have to do the analysis himself
suggestions based on this analysis to make sure the projects he is responsible for have the best possible outcomes.
This is the heart of the confusion and the clash.
Our reader, using the Meeting Needs version of respect, is following one of the basic rules of workplace success: “Make your boss look good.”
And his boss, the VP, is interpreting his behavior differently. Every time his report says things like, “I don’t think that is going to work, and here is why,” the VP feels like he is violating the rules of the Deference version of respect. That he is insubordinate and disrespectful.
And insubordination makes people angry.
What can you do?
So, reader, you are in a bit of a bind here.
Your boss doesn’t seem to want straight talk from you. He doesn’t seem to want you to contradict him at all, even if you’re giving him information and suggestions that are meant to save face and prevent failures.
You can try and have a conversation where you explain what respect means to you. That you only want the best for him and want to support his success (and the success of the division as a whole). And you can ask him what the best way is to bring him useful information, so he has everything he needs.
But it might be safer for you to shift into the Deference Scenario of respect and just stop giving him information and suggestions that contradict what he has already decided is right.
This probably won’t be sustainable for you — it will most likely be frustrating and may lead to project failures and hits to the company’s bottom line. But it should keep your job safe while you look for another position — one where your new boss won’t equate respect to blind obedience and submission.