There is a tenth response, which is surprising. Asking the other party to stop by following the protocol in Crucial Conversations: affirm the importance of the relationship to you, assert commitment to positive interactions and your respect for the individual; explain what you heard them say and how that impacts your position in the organization. They will likely respond at this point and you can actively listen, confirm your understanding that this was not their intent, and stick to your guns that “this is not OK.” I’ve had to do this various times with bullying, sexual harassment, and in situations of conflict resolution. Mostly, I have found that people are more likely to be stupid than evil. This approach is not easy. It takes courage, a strong sense of self-worth and clarity, and some skills that take practice. Requesting change, explaining the “or else” and making the path forward clear (positive behaviors to replace negative ones) is a standard approach in conflict resolution and I do not see anywhere this option fits on the list above. A comment and suggestion for the authors.