Not Everything Is ‘Ok,’ Understand?

Someone was reporting a highway shooting that seemed, and indeed proved, to be fatal. The caller asked for an ambulance, while stating her fear that her husband was dying.

“OK,” replied the emergency operator.

The caller repeated her request, adding, “He’s dying, he’s really dying.”

“All right,” said the operator.

“Please hurry.”

“OK,” the transcript shows that the operator repeated. “We’ve got them en route.”

The caller then described the victim’s bloody state and her belief that he was dying.

There was another “OK,” followed by the repeated assurance that the ambulance was en route.

“Please,” repeated the caller.

“OK.”

In such a tragic emergency, one would not think the details to be of much account. But Miss Manners finds herself struck by the repeated use of the word “OK,” and its equivalent, “all right.”

Obviously this was intended to mean, “Yes, I have understood what you are telling me and I am sending the help you need.” Time and clarity being essential, “OK” is a word that is quickly understood.

Even Miss Manners would not want an emergency operator to take the precious time to indulge in expressions of alarm or sympathy. Crisp efficiency is what is needed. But “OK” does not strike her as the way to convey this. It strikes her as a way to plant the idea, as erroneous as that may be, that the call is not being taken seriously.

“OK” is a word that is commonly used to express casual approbation - “Fine with me.” Sometimes it can convey a mild lack of interest - a kind of low-key “So what?” Or it can give the impression that what is being deemed OK is normal and not unexpected.

Miss Manners does not imagine that any such callous meanings are intended when people who are taking reports - emergencies or simple complaints - use “OK” as their standard response. But she considers it an unfortunate choice of words that can add to the caller’s sense of devastation.

Obviously everything is not OK. And to be given the impression that it is can be frustrating and infuriating.

In less crucial instances, for example, one calls to report that a mistake was made by a business or service: “You sent me the wrong item,” or “You came and fixed my appliance, but it still doesn’t work right.”

“OK,” says the person who took the complaint.

“What do you mean, ‘OK’?” the complainer thinks, if he or she does not actually ask. “It’s not OK! I’m calling to tell you that things are not OK! Understand?”

“OK.”

And while the caller in a truly serious emergency may hardly notice the details of what is said, Miss Manners cannot help but think that this person, too, might feel an additional worry from being told that the situation is OK.

Emergency operators should confirm the essential information, instead, by repeating it.

But in non-emergencies, there is time for acknowledging that something wrong has happened. There, a brief expression of sympathy for the caller’s predicament, accompanied by a promise to attend to the matter, can do wonders to defuse anger.

Miss Manners is not convinced by the argument that an “I’m sorry,” in response to such a complaint, is a premature acknowledgment of guilt that would affect the outcome of the lawsuit that the furious customer is bound to bring.

“I’m sorry” can be interpreted to mean sorrow that the situation exists, no matter whose fault it is. Besides, the likelihood of the customer’s sustaining enough anger to sue dramatically diminishes in the face of regret and sympathy, which are attitudes that few people, however provoked, can resist.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Judith Martin United Features Syndicate