Coworker using phrase "let me ask this again" when asking me about work topics - how to best deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. It is minor things really, and yes she is in a more senior role. Example: "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, I changed it but there is an error in the system so it did not save the change. I spoke with Todd and he confirmed this issue." " Let me ask this again - did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, there is an error and it did not save the change"... What more can I say? I would say I explained it clearly. Possibly she is trying to get a rise out of me? I have always replied with detailed information.. As detailed as possible.

You're responding yes when the answer is no in your example. You TRIED to change the alert but were unsuccessful. I think she's trying to let you know your responses aren't clear. Yes, in a condescending way, but this could be the result of a build up of frustration with your communication style.

Sometimes less is more.

+1. Maybe she is just slow on the uptake. When she asks "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" I'd just say "Yes" and wouldn't bother with the rest of it unless she asks.

But that isn't really true because the change did not take. "There is an error. Please ignore alert until Todd is able to fix it."

No, it is true. She did change the alert. It's not her fault that the change did not take.

It depends on the point of the question. Is the question: Did YOU change the alert? Then the answer could legitimately be yes, regardless of the outcome. Is the question: Has the alert been changed? -- the answer is No, regardless of whether you actually did what you would do to change it.

I would assume the actual question is the second because usually what matters is that something is working properly, not who made it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. It is minor things really, and yes she is in a more senior role. Example: "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, I changed it but there is an error in the system so it did not save the change. I spoke with Todd and he confirmed this issue." " Let me ask this again - did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, there is an error and it did not save the change"... What more can I say? I would say I explained it clearly. Possibly she is trying to get a rise out of me? I have always replied with detailed information.. As detailed as possible.

In this case, you did not give a complete answer. In fact, you left out the most important part. She obviously wants to know when it will be fixed. You simply gave an excuse for not fixing it. Why didn't you tell her when she could expect to STOP receiving the alert?? Your response was completely confusing. I'd get annoyed with you too.

[Anonymous]

It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. It is minor things really, and yes she is in a more senior role. Example: "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, I changed it but there is an error in the system so it did not save the change. I spoke with Todd and he confirmed this issue." " Let me ask this again - did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, there is an error and it did not save the change"... What more can I say? I would say I explained it clearly. Possibly she is trying to get a rise out of me? I have always replied with detailed information.. As detailed as possible.

OK, both of you are mis-communicating.

She wants to know something (when she'll stop receiving the alert!) but asks something slightly different.
You are answering her stated question, but not answering what she really wants to know.

Since you can't change how she communicates, you have to adapt your communication, and start reading between the lines.

So in the future, answer the question, answer what you think she wants to know, and give a little extra info. In this case, you could have said:
"I spoke with Todd, he is working to fix the issue and assured me it would be fixed by the weekend - I will let you know when the problem is solved."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. It is minor things really, and yes she is in a more senior role. Example: "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, I changed it but there is an error in the system so it did not save the change. I spoke with Todd and he confirmed this issue." " Let me ask this again - did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, there is an error and it did not save the change"... What more can I say? I would say I explained it clearly. Possibly she is trying to get a rise out of me? I have always replied with detailed information.. As detailed as possible.

OK, both of you are mis-communicating.

She wants to know something (when she'll stop receiving the alert!) but asks something slightly different.
You are answering her stated question, but not answering what she really wants to know.

Since you can't change how she communicates, you have to adapt your communication, and start reading between the lines.

So in the future, answer the question, answer what you think she wants to know, and give a little extra info. In this case, you could have said:
"I spoke with Todd, he is working to fix the issue and assured me it would be fixed by the weekend - I will let you know when the problem is solved."

+1. Exactly. You're technically answering her question, but not giving her a complete answer that contains the additional information she wants (which is, who is working on solving the change-save problem, and when will it be done). You should have known to give her that information, and she should have followed up with a more specific and polite question instead of being passive-aggressive and condescending with "Let me ask you again." That is a hostile phrase.

I get annoyed when people only give me partial information too, or give me dead ends and think that's sufficient, so I have a little sympathy for her. But I would not use her phrase since I find it so rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. It is minor things really, and yes she is in a more senior role. Example: "Debbie, I am still receiving the alert, did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, I changed it but there is an error in the system so it did not save the change. I spoke with Todd and he confirmed this issue." " Let me ask this again - did you change the alert in the system?" "Yes, there is an error and it did not save the change"... What more can I say? I would say I explained it clearly. Possibly she is trying to get a rise out of me? I have always replied with detailed information.. As detailed as possible.

OK, both of you are mis-communicating.

She wants to know something (when she'll stop receiving the alert!) but asks something slightly different.
You are answering her stated question, but not answering what she really wants to know.

Since you can't change how she communicates, you have to adapt your communication, and start reading between the lines.

So in the future, answer the question, answer what you think she wants to know, and give a little extra info. In this case, you could have said:
"I spoke with Todd, he is working to fix the issue and assured me it would be fixed by the weekend - I will let you know when the problem is solved."

This is the best response, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

Never understand people who think the proper response to rudeness is to be rude back. And, this person is her superior. Are you really advising her to respond this way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

Never understand people who think the proper response to rudeness is to be rude back. And, this person is her superior. Are you really advising her to respond this way?

Absolutely. It's the only language some people speak and it is the only way to avoid becoming a permanent doormat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

+1. As an alternative, OP, you could say "Sure, let me answer again, now sloooooowly"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

+1. As an alternative, OP, you could say "Sure, let me answer again, now sloooooowly"

Better: "Bless your heart. Let me answer again, sloooooowly"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

+1. As an alternative, OP, you could say "Sure, let me answer again, now sloooooowly"

Better: "Bless your heart. Let me answer again, sloooooowly"

A great way to get shown the door. Quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

+1. As an alternative, OP, you could say "Sure, let me answer again, now sloooooowly"

Better: "Bless your heart. Let me answer again, sloooooowly"

A great way to get shown the door. Quickly.

I get the impression that both OP and her boss work in pretty useless local government stuff. Not likely to get you fired, no matter what you say or do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's rude whichever way you interpret it, OP.

I would start asking: "which part did you not understand?"

This. It's a rude phrase that only a queen bee would use, and the only way to counter is with an equally abrupt phrase. You can say it sweetly or condescendingly, but it needs to come from the same playbook

+1. As an alternative, OP, you could say "Sure, let me answer again, now sloooooowly"

Better: "Bless your heart. Let me answer again, sloooooowly"

A great way to get shown the door. Quickly.

I get the impression that both OP and her boss work in pretty useless local government stuff. Not likely to get you fired, no matter what you say or do

Well they certainly sound like they deserve each other.

[Anonymous]

OP here- Great feedback! Thank you all for the varied advice. This is a coworker not my supervisor. Senior as in she has been here 4 years longer than I have but not in a managerial position or role. So essentially peers separated only by the number of years we have worked at this company. Non government and not handling life saving issues just your run of the mill IT firm.