Written by:

Zerayn D.

I recently experienced a challenging interaction in the workplace. I thought it might be useful to share. It may offer insight for navigating similar situations.

Let’s begin with the acronym DARVO. It’s a manipulation that stands for “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.” It’s simply done as deny the accusation, attack the source and reverse the offender as the victim.

So, this is what happened. The offender created a document that I was not initially given access to. At the time, it was described as for a specific group only. This description made me wonder about the intention. Transparency and professional accountability are important. Therefore, I felt it was appropriate to request that the document be shared. I wanted to better understand its contents and context.

Once reviewed, I noticed several characterizations that raised concerns about potential bias. In particular, descriptions such as “glaring eye contact” and “frequent interrupting” stood out. These terms can be subjective. They may unintentionally shape perceptions of an interaction in a negative way. Reflecting on these interpretations is important, as they can contribute to misunderstandings if not carefully examined.

There were also additional comments within the document that significantly influenced the overall tone. The author described my voice as “scary.” They recounted how I spoke to my young fellows after they were allowed to sit. Later, the author referred to me as “rude.” I recognize that people can experience the same interaction differently. However, these descriptions do not align with my intentions. They do not reflect how I typically communicate. Thoughtful consideration and clarification are warranted.

This situation appears to stem from differences in communication styles, personality traits, and interpretations of social cues. I naturally maintain a serious expression, particularly during discussions involving important or sensitive topics. For me, this reflects attentiveness and respect for the conversation rather than frustration or hostility. This seriousness was interpreted as “glaring.” However, I believe that perception may be influenced by individual perspective rather than objective behavior.

In my prior professional experiences, my demeanor has consistently been understood as focused and appropriate. This includes interactions with individuals in leadership roles. I remain open to reflection and growth. However, I also believe it is important to acknowledge that professionalism can present in different forms.

I am working to better understand the dynamics of interpersonal interactions. I recognize that matching the other person’s speaking style and pace helps engage more actively. It helps me participate more fully in the conversation. This approach reflects my desire to connect and contribute to the discussion in a more dynamic and participatory way. It gives me a feeling that both parties should have an equal opportunity to contribute. I value more dynamic and fluid conversation. I am getting accustomed to a conversational rhythm that allows for quick back-and-forth exchanges. This is important, given the diverse background of people I work with. Yet, this is misinterpreted as interruptions by the author, so that she called me “rude”. When I am more assertive in wanting my voice to be heard, it is not aggression and rudeness.

I am confident in my truths and express them with sincerity and seriousness. I believe that any misinterpretation of my intentions should not define or change the way I choose to communicate. 💙💙💙