Working with Anger: 5 Emotional Literacy Skills

This article is for self-observation. If anger becomes violent or there is a threat to yourself or others, prioritise safety and professional support.

“Do not shout” and “do not be angry” sound similar, but they address different things. The first can set a limit on behaviour. The second leaves little room for the feeling itself. Eventually, even naming irritation can become difficult: you say nothing, yet an hour later the argument is still running through your head.

Working with anger can involve small, practical skills: noticing a reaction, checking what prompted it, choosing an action, repairing harm, and returning to the conversation. Gradually, you can see when a conversation can continue and when you first need time for the tension to settle.

In his work on emotional literacy, Claude Steiner discussed responsibility for how our actions affect others and repairing the harm we cause. These themes are brought together below in five practical steps for an ordinary difficult conversation. You can try them separately; you do not have to complete the whole sequence while a colleague continues speaking.

A colleague interrupts you for the third time. You tense up, start speaking faster, and prepare a sharp reply. Saying to yourself “I am angry now” names the experience before it becomes a remark. If you cannot find a word, begin with what you notice: clenched fists, a louder voice, or an urge to leave.

Anger may accompany a sense of unfairness or an obstacle. Tiredness, stress, and your interpretation of events also matter. Feeling angry does not by itself prove that someone deliberately crossed your boundaries.

Sometimes the first clue is a familiar action rather than bodily tension: you open the work chat and begin typing in capital letters. Or you agree to another assignment while already wanting to slam a door. If shouting is the only sign you notice, much of your response remains invisible. Look for your own early indication, before choosing your words becomes harder.

The name of the feeling can be approximate: “I’m irritated,” “I feel hurt and angry,” or “I don’t yet understand what’s happening.” A more fitting word may come later. There is no need to turn this into another examination in emotional accuracy. Noticing that the usual pace of conversation no longer works may be enough to stop the first harsh draft from being sent automatically.

Separate the event from your explanation. “My colleague interrupted me three times” can be discussed. “He thinks I am worthless” is a conclusion that needs checking. Your next sentence could be simple: “I would like to finish my point, then hear yours.”

You can then hear the other person’s reply. Perhaps they were rushing or afraid of losing their thought. That information can help you agree on how to continue the conversation.

In the scene with your colleague, you can examine the meeting conditions as well as their intention. Did everyone have time to speak? Was anyone managing turns? Were others interrupted too? One incident may call for clarification; a recurring practice may require a different meeting rule. Trying only to contain yourself more effectively can leave the cause of irritation unchanged.

Checking an assumption does not mean finding an excuse for someone’s conduct. You can be uncertain why you are being interrupted and still ask to finish. “I’m not sure you meant to dismiss me, but I couldn’t finish my point” leaves room for clarification while naming a specific problem. A boundary around behaviour does not depend on proving malicious intent.

Sometimes you can already speak briefly and directly. Sometimes you need a pause: “I am too angry to discuss this properly right now. I will come back to it after lunch.” If you agree to return, choose a time you can keep.

A pause differs from punitive silence when its purpose and length are clear. It leaves room for a conversation without insults, threats, or coercion. Not every disagreement ends in agreement. The outcome may instead be a clear rule or a decision to stop participating in a particular interaction.

A break can easily become a continuation of the argument in your head: assembling the final argument, recalling old grievances and rereading a draft message. The conversation has technically stopped, but you return more tense. You might put the chat aside, change position and let breathing slow without forcing it. The purpose of the break becomes clearer when you ask whether you can now state a request without a threat.

A 2024 meta-analysis found that activities reducing arousal generally reduced anger and aggression, whereas increasing arousal did not help overall. This is not a prohibition on sport, but it offers little support for treating blows against objects as a reliable way to “release” anger.

If you shouted, you might say: “I raised my voice and insulted you. That was unnecessary. Next time I will pause earlier.” Explaining tiredness or pressure can provide context without cancelling the impact of your words.

An apology continues in actions: correcting an error, returning to an agreement, or changing how you speak. The other person may need time and does not have to restore trust immediately.

Specific repair depends on specific harm. If you posted a harsh message in a shared chat, a private apology may leave your colleague with a public humiliation nobody corrected. A brief acknowledgement in the same space might be appropriate: “My message was insulting. That is my responsibility; let’s discuss the work issue separately.” Where private information is involved, repeating it publicly for the sake of an impressive apology is unnecessary.

You can take responsibility for shouting without accepting all responsibility for the conflict. After acknowledging your conduct, another issue remains: you really were interrupted, or assignments may have been allocated unfairly. Your own mistake does not erase those questions. Keeping them separate can prevent an apology becoming a bargain: “I’ll acknowledge my part only if you acknowledge yours first.”

After a conversation, write a few lines about what happened, what you thought, how you responded, and what you would change next time. If the same conflict occurs every week, examine workload, unclear responsibilities, or an agreement nobody keeps. A calming exercise alone may not change those conditions.

Entries can reveal details that slipped past during the conversation: rushing, an unspoken request, or a habit of agreeing and feeling resentful later. Those details give you something to work with: clarify an agreement or try another response.

For a recurring incident, the sequence matters alongside the intensity of anger. On Monday you accept an extra assignment, on Tuesday you do not ask for help, and on Wednesday a colleague’s interruption becomes the final straw. Focusing solely on Wednesday can conceal earlier decisions after which tension gradually rose.

Changes are easier to examine through observable actions too. Next time you asked for a turn earlier, declined an extra assignment or returned from a break when agreed. The anger may still have been strong. That does not erase a change in how you responded. If other people repeatedly disregard agreements, examine the conditions of the interaction rather than demanding ever greater self-control from yourself.

You could begin: “I was interrupted three times during the meeting. I thought my work was not respected. I raised my voice and called my colleague incompetent.” The first sentence describes an event, the second your interpretation, and the third an action for which you can take responsibility. Separating them means you do not have to argue with the entire situation at once.

Leave room for what remains unknown: “I don’t know whether he intended to humiliate me. I didn’t clarify how speaking time was organised.” Then identify two separate actions: “Apologise for the insulting word. Ask for everyone to be allowed to finish at the next meeting.” These are manageable steps without a guarantee that your colleague will agree.

If writing is difficult now, you can return later or talk the incident through with someone you trust. You do not have to explain your entire experience of anger immediately. Noticing one point at which a different response might be possible next time can be enough to begin.

Source: NHS — anger guidance.

For a written review of signals, thoughts, needs, and boundaries, you can use About Emotions: Anger workbook.

A separate example of an emotional impulse becoming action is explored in the author’s essay “Anger as a Signal and a Source of Energy for Change”.