Some people only understand the language of anger. It really depends on the individual. Some people understand you when you're acting calmly 100% of the time. Others need to be reminded that what they're doing actually bothers you and the only way to get through to them and applying pressure is being loud and angry. But those are usually the people you souldn't be doing business with anyway.
My view is you're rarely dealing with individuals, it's company protocol and process you're really interacting with. The individuals you're talking too may or may not sympathize, and the may or may not be able to do anything for you, but it's luck of the draw. I think a lot of companies have decided to set up systems that make sure your issues end up in the ether and it's incredibly infuriating. I've been on both ends of it. When I send an angry email to Verizon because the email they sent me is an obvious attempt at getting me to accidentally overpay my bill, I don't consider the individual on the receiving end, but that's only because, as someone who's been on the receiving end countless times, I've never taken it personally. I usually agree with the end user on some level but know there might not be much I can do. I also understand that companies can't stop the presses for every complaint that comes in, but I think many companies, especially really big ones, bank on many of the things that make their customers angry and would prefer just to ignore them (insurance industry being the worst example of this). Unfortunately, it works like gangbusters. You can be as nice or as mean to any individual at a big company, but you'll most likely give up before anything beneficial for you gets done.
Companies often reward angry behavior by responding to the angry ones. It can actually be helpful on a help-line to pretend you are angry, which is a net negative for society.
"Get angry" is a perfectly valid, and sometimes very useful, negotiating tactic. Note that this is different from actually getting angry - if you're emotionally compromised, as Spock would say, you're less likely to be able play smart - but if you act angry (as you say, 'angry behaviour') at the right point it can greatly amplify your ability to get things done.
With company process this reasoning does not work. Emotions are a human concept, but companies are entirely about money. When you need to extract the security deposit out of your apartment complex that quite perceptibly has a policy of cheating the tenants out of as much as they can there is precisely no difference at all between "I'll send you the demand letter now" and "I'll send you the demand letter YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!1!". The only thing that counts is that they receive one at a serviceable address. At least that has been the experience.
A case can be made that the poor sods working for the cheating company are in fact enabling it, consequently their lives should be made hard for colluding.
It sort of depends on whether the fact that you might act impulsively matters to the other party. This makes all the difference in nuclear war or so some strategists say... In customer service, an angry customer could do damage to PR or if they are a big client, could cut off the company unpredictably so it would force them to decide if they want you or not and if they do act quickly. It pays to understand the difference between these situations. Anger should be used selectively and only when it will be effective (and preferably when the other party deserves it).
I agree with this but let me ask you, how many do you think respond more from anger vs calmness? I think or at least I'd like to believe that more people respond from calmness and I'd rather interact and be successful through calmness even if it means I don't exactly get what I want that small amount of time from those who would respond better from anger.
Hmm, that's a good question. I guess in the vast majority of cases, calmness wins. Especially at the workplace. And usually, it's better to avoid the people who only understand the language of anger, rather than confront them. But sometimes, someone has to stand up to these people.
I don't think anger has a language. There is a difference between anger, calm, and commanding.
If, while I notice across the room, my two year old is about to shove a waffle into a VCR or similar port of entry for food into electronics, I will give a sharp word to "STOP!" This gets his attention, possibly makes him upset, and usually prevents the situation from escalating. This is a clear example of commanding. It can be done with a soft or a hard approach, but the results are generally the same. It's a warning -- that the activity or event is going to lead to real consequences if the behavior continues.
