8
Attain Emotional Control by Understanding What Emotions Are3
EDWIN A. LOCKE
“Know thyself”
—Inscription above the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
There has been considerable interest in emotions in the workplace over the last 15 years, but strangely most discussions of emotion (even those outside the fields of organizational behavior and I/O psychology) have lacked one thing: a definition of emotion!
Why? Because one can only grasp the nature of emotions by introspection - by looking inwards at one’s mental contents and processes - and introspection has been unofficially - and wrongly - banned (for reasons I need not go into here) from the field of psychology for close to 100 years (Locke, 2009).
The nature of emotion
I will begin by defining what I am talking about: emotions are the form in which one experiences automatic, subconscious value judgments (value appraisals), Appraisal theory was first identified in psychology, to the author’s knowledge, by Arnold (1960), but see Peikoff (1991) for a more complete statement. Every emotion involves a specific type of value appraisal. For example:• Fear is the form in which one experiences a perceived threat to one’s life or well-being (or that of a loved one).
• Anxiety is similar to fear but the nature of the threat is more uncertain and may involve one’s self-esteem.
• Sadness is the form in which one experiences the loss of a value. (Depression is a more intense form of sadness involving self-deprecation and a sense of hopelessness.)
• Anger is the form in which one experiences a perceived injustice or goal frustration.
• Guilt is the form in which one experiences the perception of violating one’s moral values.
• Satisfaction is the form in which one experiences having gained or possessed a value.
• Love is the response to something appraised as a positive value. (It is a stronger emotion than satisfaction and the value does not necessarily have to be possessed (e.g., a work of art).
• Pride is the form in which one experiences an achievement, including the achievement of one’s moral character, due to one’s own efforts.
• Happiness is the state of non-contradictory joy (stronger and more all-encompassing than satisfaction).
• Admiration is the form in which one appraises the positive achievement(s) of another person.
The universal pattern of every emotion (excepting those caused by abnormal brain states or hormone imbalances) is: object→cognition→value appraisal→emotion. The object can be a thing, a person, an action, an event, an idea, a memory or a previous emotion. (In some cases people may not be aware or only peripherally aware of what the precipitating object is.) The cognition stage involves one’s perception of the object and the present context plus all the stored knowledge which the subconscious automatically associates with the object. The value stage involves subconsciously “measuring” the object with respect to whether some value is perceived as being threatened or fulfilled in some form and to some degree. All emotions have either a positive or negative valence but to varying degrees, for example loving is stronger than liking, hating is stronger than disliking. (Emotions, of course, are accompanied by various physiological reactions. However, there is rarely any fixed, universal pattern of physiological reactions that is a unique indicator of one specific emotion for all people, though for certain basic emotions such as fear there may be broad similarities. Basic emotions, however, do have characteristic facial expressions.)
The crucial point here is that the two middle stages, cognition and value appraisal, are automatic (lightning fast and not chosen) rather than volitional, and subconscious rather than conscious. So what one consciously experiences is: object→emotion. In a waking state one is continually experiencing emotions, because the subconscious is always at work, although many emotions are mild and fleeting and thus not significant enough to notice or analyze.
A mood is an enduring emotional state
A mood is enduring because the object (such as an unpleasant boss) is omnipresent or because the subconscious causes endure based on memory (such as following the loss of a job one loved) or rumination (replaying the triggering event or one’s thoughts about it). Some have argued that moods are defined by their having no known causes. Sometimes the cause of a mood is not known but that does not mean it cannot be identified. A good strategy is to identify exactly when the mood began and what was happening at the time, with respect to events or thoughts. For example, a spat with one’s romantic partner could cause one to feel depressed all day (or longer). The emotional remnants of an unpleasant work experience (or a failed romance) could linger for days, months or even years. (Admittedly, some moods are caused by hormone imbalances.)
What’s the proof that the causal, subconscious processes noted above really exist and cause the emotion? One has first to introspect backwards in time. Consider the following example.
Pat comes to a business meeting and is severely criticized by her boss for certain “mistakes” that caused the company to lose an important account. In reality, she was not to blame. It was the project leader who messed up the account, including acting against her advice in several important respects, and then told the boss that the outcome was Pat’s fault.
The main, immediate, automatic emotion Pat will feel will be anger, because a grave injustice was committed towards her. The object was the attack. If asked what was upsetting after the fact, Pat could cognitively identify one key fact: the attack was based on false information. If asked what value was violated, Pat would say: the desire for just treatment (and/or honesty).
One can further validate the model by mental experiments in which the “script” is revised. “How,” you ask Pat, “would you have felt if the boss had, instead of attacking you, attacked the project leader, after having gathered relevant information from reliable sources?” Pat’s answer would probably be something like, “I would not feel anger. If the boss spoke factually without becoming enraged, I would have felt it was just but also a bit sad, because I wanted the project to succeed. If he had exploded with rage, I would have felt some fear, because it would mean the boss lacked self-control and could attack me next.”
Next, one could ask, “What would you feel if deep down you considered justice to be an unobtainable value in this world and never expected to see it.” Pat would probably reply that what she would have experienced is a kind of hopeless, cynical resignation, or sadness rather than anger.
(One can also validate the model with a simple pseudo-experiment. To show introductory psychology students the effect of ideas on emotions, I would suddenly state, in the middle of a class, that we were going to have an unannounced quiz right then, on the assigned reading which would count towards their final grade. The two emotions that automatically emerged every time were: anxiety and anger. The value standards involved are obvious. The emotions disappeared immediately when I said that I was just kidding in order to illustrate a point.).
The important point here is that the output, the emotion, is the result of three inputs: the object (event), the cognitive associations to the object and context, and the value appraisal(s). One input is usually (though not always) conscious and two are subconscious, but change any of these, and the emotion is changed. (I will have more to say about changing emotional responses later.)
The findings of neuropsychology do not invalidate the above model. Obviously, everything is stored in the brain and mental processes occur somewhere (e.g. the limbic system, or in several different places). But the brain is only the hardware. The ideas stored in the mind can be viewed as the software - they give the brain cognitive content. The concept of emotion would have no relevance or meaning to a totally unconscious being.
It is because people hold different ideas and values that the same object can cause different emotions in different people (and different emotions at different times in the same person, if their ideas change). A stern boss can be seen by one employee as businesslike and focused whereas another employee (with different beliefs and values) might see the same boss as cold and unfeeling. Even if the different emotions were processed in different parts of the brain, brain scans cannot identify the content of the person’s ideas nor explain why different people process the same event differently.
Multiple emotions
It is possible to experience more than one emotion toward an object, especially a person, at the same time. Imagine an employee who cannot be located for three days. Then he comes into the office with a brilliant marketing plan that could save the company. The manager might experience three different emotions: anger because of being frustrated by the employee’s mysterious disappearance; relief that the employee showed up; and elation about the marketing plan. One can also hold emotions at different levels. At one level an employee might admire a smart boss and at a deeper level feel jealous or inadequate. The human mind is a wonderfully complex instrument. (In romantic relationships things can get even more complicated - but that’s another book).
Emotions and action
Every emotion has a built-in action tendency (Arnold, 1960), i.e. a felt impulse to action. (Again, such tendencies can be identified by introspection.) The survival value of, for example, lion→fear→run, etc. is obvious. The cave man who engaged in long, cognitive deliberation when confronted by a wild beast would not have many future opportunities to reproduce.
The action impulses for positive appraisals include wanting to keep, hold, or protect the valued objects. The impulses for negative emotions include wanting to avoid or harm (verbally or physically) the disvalued object.
It must be stressed that, although emotions automatically contain action impulses, everyone (this side of mental illness) has volitional choice as to what action to take in response to emotions. This too is validated by introspection. Consider this example.
Joe is called into the vice president’s office and informed that he is being fired after 15 years with the company. Joe has long believed that he was unfairly treated and had all along been set up for failure by organizational politics. Joe is very angry at this perceived injustice. Joe’s action impulse is to get even. Many possible actions might occur to him immediately. (Others might occur to him later.) One is to punch the boss on the nose. Another is to come back with a gun and kill some people. Another is to give the VP a tongue-lashing. Another is a blog attack on the company. Another is a lawsuit. Another is to pressure the company for a generous termination bonus.
Observe here that Joe may consider many action alternatives (which might or might not be similar to those of a different fired employee) but no overt actions are forced on Joe by his subconscious. Joe has the power, despite whatever impulses he might have, to consider different responses and to choose among them. Here is where, unlike the case of the lion menacing the cave man, he has time for deliberation, including the power to consider the pros and cons of various alternatives and to choose an appropriate course of action, including the choice of no action.
Which action Joe chooses will depend, in part, on his moral code. If he considers initiating physical force to be immoral, this will rule out all overtly aggressive acts. Of the remaining possibilities, the choice will depend on any number of personal factors such as knowledge, personality, and thinking.
( If Joe has spent his entire life acting impulsively, in which case he probably would never have held any job for very long and might even have a criminal record, self-control could be much more difficult because of the bad habits he had acquired.)
Emotions and reason
It has been treated as a virtual axiom from ancient Greek philosophers to the present day that emotions and reason are inherently at odds, i.e. in conflict. This is known in philosophy as the mind-body dichotomy. (There are other versions of the mind-body dichotomy but reason vs emotion is the most common version.) The belief is considered even more rock-solid today because the center for emotions is located in a different part of the brain than the center for thinking. However, this does not prove the case, because different parts of the brain are interconnected. The evidence from cognitive therapy is that you can change emotions by changing the thoughts underlying them (Butler, Chapman, Forman, and Beck, 2006; Clark and Beck, 1999). And, as noted, one can see that emotions are the product of (subconscious) ideas by introspection.
I believe the concept of a mind-body dichotomy to be profoundly mistaken (see Peikoff (1991), especially Chapters 1, 5, and 7, for a more detailed discussion). The cause of this error is, most fundamentally, the inability or failure to introspect.
What people experience as clashes between reason and emotion are actually clashes between consciously held and subconsciously held ideas.
Consider Sandra, a unit manager. When things go wrong, she gets angry and has the automatic urge to lash out at her subordinates; on the other hand, her reason tells her that this is a poor management practice. She thinks, “It’s just reason versus emotion again. That’s just the way people are.” But are they? Why does Sandra feel angry? Perhaps because her subconscious premise is, “All my employees should do everything right all the time.” Or, “I shouldn’t have to be bothered by crises; I have other things I need to spend my time on.” Or, “This will make me look bad and hurt my career.”
Observe that the first two subconscious premises are mistaken; people do make mistakes and things just don’t go perfectly all the time in any business. The third premise may be mistaken unless things go wrong constantly, but more relevant is what she learns from her mistakes so they are not repeated. If Sandra identifies her wrong premises through introspection, she has the power to correct them. Further, she can go deeper. She can ask herself why the problems that bother her arise in the first place, “Am I hiring capable, conscientious employees? Are they getting proper direction and training? Are crises occurring because there are issues I did not make an effort to foresee?”
( I will not go further into psychopathology in this chapter, but it is possible that Sandra is displacing her anger over something else - such as a troubled romantic relationship - onto her employees, or that she is feeling low self-efficacy (see Chapter 10, this volume) and is defending against her own self-doubts.)
Although emotions contain action impulses, they are, in a fundamental respect, the passive part of one’s psychology. Given the perceived objects and one’s premises at a given time, emotions are not chosen or willed; they just happen. Reason, on the other hand, is the locus of volition (Binswanger, 1991; Peikoff, 1991; this too is validated by introspection). One must choose whether to think or not to think. Reason is the active, self-caused part of one’s psychology. Through reason we have the power to understand our emotions, to choose what action we will take in response to them and to reprogram them if needed. (Reprogramming can be very difficult in some cases, for example childhood abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder).
Consequences of emotion at work
It is interesting that studies of the consequences of subordinates’ and leaders’ emotions (or moods) at work, for example decision making, helping behaviors, absenteeism, subordinate performance in response to leader emotions, often lead to inconsistent or contradictory findings (Grandey, 2008; Humphrey, 2008). This would be expected if there was no deterministic relationship between emotions and specific actions (as contrasted with felt action tendencies). One of the most consistent findings in the literature is that low satisfaction is more likely to lead to turnover (quitting) than high satisfaction, but even here there are important exceptions (see Chapter 7, this volume). Since emotions in everyday life are not separate from cognitions (e.g. stored knowledge, interpretation of the current situation), one would need to know not only how a person feels but also how and what they think in order to predict and explain how they will act in the face of emotions.
Changing an emotion
Because emotions are automatic one cannot change them directly; one can only change them indirectly by modifying their causes.
Consider Peter who failed to get a much wanted promotion at XYZ Corp. He felt great disappointment, sadness, some anger, and considerable anxiety because he “failed” and now doubted his own competence. What can Peter do? The object is the failure to get a promotion. He cannot change that, but he can increase his chances for future success by seeking feedback regarding what his boss considers his weaknesses. He can then try to improve himself. What of his automatic cognitive appraisals? He may have subconsciously concluded that he was stupid and would always be a failure. These are clearly overgeneralizations that he can correct (cf. cognitive therapy). Finally, what of his value appraisal? He did not get what he wanted, thus the disappointment. And maybe he is not even capable of rising to the top of his industry. But if so, he can substitute new value standards, new aspirations that fit his capabilities. He might even change his career to something he likes more. Gradually, disappointment can be replaced by hope and self-doubt with self-efficacy.
I may have made this sound easier than it is, because there are always layers of value standards. Some may be tied to Peter’s self-image or self-esteem, and people are often reluctant to give up the way they have viewed themselves. Sometimes changing this requires professional help. Also, deeply automatized premises that are tied to one’s self-concept may take some time to change. Professional help may be required here as well. But the point is that one is not helpless in the face of emotions, because, as I noted, they are not psychological primaries (chemical imbalances aside).
Emotions and life
The psychological role of emotions is not simply survival for the cave man. The issue goes deeper. The role of emotions is to make your values psychologically real - as opposed to flat, cognitive abstractions. There is an enormous difference between saying “X is a good thing” and feeling an actual (and possibly burning) desire for it. Without desire, man is just an unmotivated robot. Emotions are not tools of actual knowledge (knowing requires reason); they are tools of motivation. They allow you to experience wanting, and thus be motivated to act.
Tragic errors are made by those who reverse these roles. Acting only on emotions without reason substitutes feelings for knowledge and thereby puts one’s life out of control. An “emotionalist” will swing wildly from one impulse to the next with no sense of purpose or long range goal. On the other side of the coin, using reason but repressing emotions destroys one’s capacity for joy and undermines one’s motivation to pursue values. The issue is not reason or emotion but both together, in harmony. Harmony between reason and emotion is impossible without introspection. For example, a troublesome emotion can be caused by wanting the irrational, for example wanting a promotion one does not deserve.
To summarize the key points made so far:1. Emotions are not unanalyzable primaries but the consequences of ideas stored in the subconscious.
2. Emotions are automatic but can be changed indirectly by changing the inputs (their causes).
3. There is no innate or inherent conflict between reason and emotion; such clashes are actually clashes between consciously held and subconsciously held ideas.
4. Emotions do not compel action; everyone (who is not suffering from severe mental illness) has the power to make choices in the face of emotional responses (including the choice of taking no action).
5. Both emotions and reason are critical to a successful and happy life. But it is critical to understand the proper function of each and to keep them in harmony.
MEDIATORS
The psychological mediators (causal mechanisms) of emotions are those noted earlier: the object that triggers the emotion, the subconscious cognitive associations to the object, and the subconscious value appraisals which follow.
MODERATORS
The key moderating factors in understanding emotion and in harmonizing reason and emotion are skill at introspection and the willingness to do it. People who won’t or can’t introspect will feel afraid of their emotions, because they will seem causeless, incomprehensible and uncontrollable.
Why don’t people introspect? There are many reasons. One is that, in a way, it is not “natural.” Extrospection is natural; every child starts life by looking outwards. Further, one gets immediate feedback if one fails to extrospect, like running into doors, or tripping over clothes or touching something hot on the stove. There is no such immediate, unequivocal feedback for not introspecting.
Second, most people don’t know how to introspect. No one teaches it and psychologists have pretty much banned it from the literature for the past 100 years.
Third, most people do not see its value. The benefits are not immediately self-evident; it takes time to understand oneself and to see the payoff.
Fourth, introspection is hard work. Unlike extrospection (at the perceptual level) there is no special sense organ for looking inwards. It is a volitional process requiring the use of one’s conceptual faculty. Many people do not want to expend the effort of actually thinking (reasoning) about either their own consciousness or the outside world.
Fifth, many people fear introspection. They fear what they might find or what they might have to face. They fear their emotions are primaries and are out of their control. They fear that understanding themselves might threaten their self-image or self-esteem which is built on various defenses which they do not want to acknowledge. This can become a vicious circle, because the more they rely on defenses, the more vulnerable they become and the more defenses they have to erect. Defenses are designed subconsciously to escape from reality, but, in the end, reality cannot be escaped. The more “well defended” an individual is, the more detached he is from reality. Of course, as implied earlier, people have the power to act against their fears.
Because most people are not very good at introspection, self-reports of emotion should be at least somewhat suspect (i.e. considered subject to error) unless the individual has some skill at introspection.
What does it mean to achieve emotional control? It does not mean, in my view, to repress all emotion, that is, to give a standing order to one’s subconscious not to allow any awareness of emotion to enter conscious awareness. This would be disastrous psychologically, as noted earlier.
Emotional control, as I view it, involves five elements:1. Identifying, that is, naming your emotions - not every single one because that would occupy all your time but those which are most intense and/or enduring. This alone can enhance some feeling of control, because naming emotions makes them less mysterious.
2. Identifying their causes. This includes positive emotions. If you know what brings you pleasure or happiness, you can take steps to expose yourself to the same object (assuming it is not harmful like smoking). For example, if you know what parts of your job you like the most, you can try to build more of those tasks into your job. This helps control your mood in a positive way. But usually when people talk of emotional control, they refer to negative emotions. They mean things like not losing your temper or not being overwhelmed by panic or anxiety. Emotional responses can become habitual through repeated experiences (some going back to childhood). Nevertheless, their causes can be grasped.
3. Changing the causes when necessary. If the emotion is negative, you have three possible ways to intervene (object, cognition, values). You can change or avoid the objects, correct mistaken beliefs, and modify inappropriate values. As noted, the more strongly automatized they are and the more subconscious layers involved, the more difficult the change process.
4. Consciously and rationally choosing what action(s), if any, to take based on or regardless of your emotions.
5. Suppressing emotions, or actions based on them, when necessary. Suppression is different from repression. Repression is subconscious and based on an implicit standing order to the subconscious (“Don’t let me feel X”). Suppression is conscious. It involves deliberately inhibiting an emotion (or an action based on it) because experiencing it or acting on it is not appropriate in a given context (e.g. it may be distracting or there may be conduct norms that it is important to honor). When analyzing emotions it can be very helpful to write down one’s observations, for example what emotion(s) one is feeling, the causal elements, the action tendencies and action choices, the errors one’s subconscious may have made, etc. This makes the emotion more objective and helps one to slow down one’s mental processes so that one can understand what has happened.
Mark
Let’s begin with a negative example. Mark is a unit manager for a Fortune 1000 company. Since receiving his MBA from a high prestige school, Mark has received two promotions. Given his background he believes that he will surely become CEO of his company, or, if not, of another Fortune 1000 company. However, he is having a hard time mastering his present job which is highly technical - nothing like the cases he studied in his MBA classes. He is feeling self-doubt, a threat to his self-esteem, and he can’t stand the feelings of anxiety that are the result of this doubt. Further, not being able to master something easily threatens his self-image as a brilliant person. He could study the technical aspects of his job more thoroughly, but this would imply that he cannot master things in a flash which his self-image requires. So he tries desperately to work “around” his ignorance. He delegates some of the work but to people who know less than he does. He tries to bluff his way through meetings. When glitches occur, he angrily blames others, even though at some subconscious level which he will not make conscious, he knows that he is the one to blame. When his boss inquires about problems, he evades giving straight answers and assures his boss that things will be taken care of. Eventually things get more and more out of control and Mark has to rely increasingly on outright lies and then more lies to cover up those lies. Gradually, his projects fall apart and he gets caught lying, because he can no longer recall which lies he told to which person. In the end he is fired; his career, for now, is in tatters.
Imagine the difference in the outcome if Mark had honestly and openly identified his initial self-doubt and its cause: “I don’t know how to do this job, and I feel inadequate and scared. I am trying to live up to a self-image which maybe is not a rational one.” Then he could have chosen what to do, for example seek therapy, consult experts, study on his own, get more training, ask his boss for advice, etc. The outcome could have been quite different if he had not evaded and let his unidentified emotions control him.
Sandra
Now let’s consider a real case sent to me by an acquaintance (with details changed to preserve anonymity). Sandra works as a manager in the software industry. She finds that introspection “is indispensable for running effective meetings. For instance, I have often been in meetings where people ‘admit to a certain deception’ such as being much farther behind in a project than they have been letting on.” Her immediate reaction in this situation is anger and she knows the source: “It is unjust that this person misled me. At this point it is necessary to first let go of the anger [suppression] and be able to have enough concentration to determine what is the correct response” (consciously choosing what action to take). She goes on, “I might even need to take into account future needs such as ‘I need to set an example’ ” so that others don’t explode in anger when things go wrong. “Then I must decide how much emotion I want to express. How will each person at the meeting react to my reaction? For a while I thought that this whole process was itself a deception, but I realized that a good manager needs to be in control of their emotions and needs to be cognizant of the emotional responses of the people who work for them.”
A manager must show self-control or the employees will think they are living in an unpredictable, irrational universe. In addition to understanding her emotions, Sandra had to do two things in a situation like this: (1) make clear that dishonesty was unacceptable and (2) make it safe for people who have problems to admit them (but insist that it be done sooner).
Observe how many smart things Sandra did. First, she identified her emotional response (anger). Second, she identified its cause (injustice). Third, she thought about the proper response and realized that anger would be unwise and suppressed that impulse. Fourth, observe that her ability to introspect allowed her to empathize with others: she could foresee how others might react to her anger if it were extreme. That is why she suppressed it. Fifth, she used reason to decide exactly what she needed to communicate and how. (Incidentally, a precondition of empathy is understanding one’s own emotions.)
Is there such a thing as emotional intelligence (EI)?
In short, no (see Locke, 2005). EI has been defined in so many ways and has so many components (on which advocates do not even agree) that it is literally unintelligible. Intelligence is the capacity to grasp abstractions, but you do not need a high IQ to introspect about your emotions. The best terms for what I have been talking about are skill at introspection and the willingness to use that skill. [In a recent article, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) admit the term has been defined too broadly, but I believe even their narrower definition is too broad. Furthermore, they end up characterizing EI as an ability, which is basically the same as skill, which means there is no need for the term intelligence here at all.] There is no doubt that introspective skill could be taught and that existing and would-be managers could benefit from such training. This is not to say that introspection is the most important managerial skill (I don’t think it is), but it is a very useful one for reasons which I think I have made clear.
Emotional experience vs emotional expression
In the literature emotional expression is called emotional “display” but that sounds rather like making emotions into a peacock. As noted from the last case, sometimes it is best to suppress the overt expression of an emotion so as not to unduly upset others in the workplace. Here is the way to deal with justified anger without acting too angrily. From manager to work team (let’s assume it is still Sandra speaking): “I have just learned that all the sub-tasks for our project X are behind schedule, even though I have been assured for the past several weeks that everything was on target. Let me say that this makes me quite angry for two reasons. First, I think I have been deceived. Maybe you were afraid I would blow up at you, but even if that were true (which it is not), how does it help to deny reality? It just makes the mess worse. From now on, I want you to tell me if you are having problems right away, and we will work to solve it. If you fail to do this in the future, I will assume you are lacking in moral integrity and will act accordingly. Second, because I was not kept informed, we may end up hurting our reputation with the customer and that reflects badly on us and our company. Now let’s discuss how to insure better information exchange and then how to fix this project.”
The proper tone here would be serious and stern but not enraged or intimidating. It is clear that the manager is angry, and she has identified but has not lost control of her anger. Further, she has explained the reasons for the anger and suggested specific actions that should be taken next.
What if the emotion is positive, for example the company or unit just got a new, much desired contract or other good news? Here is a real life example from Mickey Dresser, CEO of retailer J. Crew (and formerly of The Gap from which he was fired; Brodie, 2008, p. 56). Mickey likes to use a public address system to communicate with employees. One day in the middle of lunch he was patched through to the office PA system to give this message:Hi, everyone, it’s Mickey. I’m at Koi [a restaurant], waiting to meet my son for lunch, and I’m seeing a woman wearing our Florentine-print dress. Her friend just asked her where she got it. She said, “J. Crew.” It’s going to be a great lunch!
Dresser was clearly expressing excitement and joy based on the anticipation of great sales and wanted to share his feelings with his employees. One can guess that most employees were pleased by this announcement. This brings us to another point.
The effect of the manager on the mood of the office
Because managers are in a position of power (see Chapter 19), they can influence the mood of the whole office, especially the mood of people they come into direct contact with (maybe through email too). An angry, condemning mood will incite anxiety and fear in others, because the manager will be seen as a threat (even without making specific threats). In contrast, a manager who projects a benevolent mood will create a happier atmosphere. Of course, a manager has to be businesslike but this is not incompatible with a pleasant demeanor. This issue brings up another one.
Should you fake emotions?
I agree with those who say: No (e.g. see Grandey, 2008). Employees can readily spot emotions which are not authentic. But how then can you set the mood of the office? Part of the answer lies in selection. Organizations should not choose people as managers who are not nice people (though obviously niceness is far from the only requirement). Some people are temperamentally (and ethically) unsuited to manage other people. But let’s say you have personality problems and yet want to set a positive tone with your subordinates.
The first step would be to identify why your mood is predominantly negative; fixing this might require professional help. You may hold subconscious premises (e.g. no one can be trusted, people are out to get me) that could be changed. (In some cases medication may be called for as well.)
The next step would be to learn interpersonal skills - that is, appropriate ways of behaving with others regardless of your emotional impulses. For example, if you are angry that a subordinate has done a bad job, you can learn specific steps to follow to deal with the problem without blowing up, as noted in some earlier examples. Further, you can learn how to encourage subordinates and praise them for doing good work (Chapter 13). You can also learn how to listen, a skill that too many managers lack. You can apply these skills whether or not your emotions are pushing you in the right direction at a given time. (Many executives today have personal coaches who can help them learn these skills.)
Both these steps reflect aspects of emotional control.
In addition, you can make sure you are a person of outstanding moral character since character is within the realm of one’s choice (see Chapter 20). This will build trust between you and your subordinates which helps foster high morale, providing you are also competent (see Chapter 21).
What about customer service personnel?
It is generally agreed that being a customer service representative is a stressful job, especially when it involves constantly dealing with complaints. The service reps get the brunt of the anger, because they are symbols of the whole company.
The first step is again selection: choose people who like this type of work. The second step involves a secret about emotions that 99% of customer service reps do not seem to know - it concerns how to deal with customers’ anger. Most reps respond to anger or grumpiness (based on hundreds of examples from my personal experience) either by totally ignoring, i.e. by total silence, or by asking: “So what can I help you with?” or by defensiveness (“Don’t blame me”). Usually, this simply increases the customer’s anger.
Here is the secret: you have to disarm the anger by acknowledging it and even empathizing with it, namely: “I’m so sorry for the poor service (product, etc.). I don’t blame you for feeling disappointed (frustrated, angry).” Because the customer feels understood emotionally, the result is that he or she virtually always calms down and becomes less moody.
Burnout
Burnout means that you no longer enjoy your job and lack enthusiasm for it. There can be many reasons for this which you can discover by introspection, for example you never really wanted to be in this type of job in the first place (you chose it based on status or pressures from others or because it was the “in” career at the time, for example law); the job does not allow you to grow in your knowledge and expertise (you are stagnating); the job entails never-ending and unresolvable conflicts with others; the people you work with are mean, incompetent, and/or dishonest; the job was not what you expected and desired; stress on the job is unrelenting and you see no way to increase your self-efficacy enough to moderate it (Chapter 27), etc. The solution to burnout is usually a job or career change, ideally after you have had time off to reflect on what you want.
Defensiveness
Defensiveness involves trying to protect oneself against perceived attack or criticism. Specifically, what one is trying to protect is one’s sense of self-esteem (which may be fragile). Common mechanisms of defense are rationalization (making excuses), denial (I didn’t do it), and evasion (refusing to consider the issue). The danger of defensives is that it detaches the mind from reality and thereby makes the problem impossible to fix.
One of my business heroes in this respect is Ken Iverson, the late CEO of Nucor. Early in its history (after Iverson took over) the company was not doing well and a stockholder complained at the annual meeting. Iverson did not get defensive. His response was “What can I say? We’re a lousy company.” Of course, Iverson, unburdened by any desire to fake reality, went on to make Nucor one of the best steel companies in the world. Legendary investor Warren Buffett has the same attitude. When his company has a (rare) bad year, he simply says they did a poor job.
The key principle to sustain high self-esteem and prevent defensiveness is: treat reality (facts) as an absolute. Former GE CEO Jack Welch said that you must face reality as it is, rather than as you want it to be. If you want to change what is (e.g. poor past performance), you have first to acknowledge the facts in front of you, including your own mistakes. Then you are in a position to fix them.
Note that this policy eliminates the need for defensiveness, because your self-esteem is secure when reality rather than wishes come first. There is no illusion of self-esteem to protect.
A substantial segment of the leadership literature stresses or implies that the main role of the leader is that of motivator of employees. Although this is one role, I believe that it is not the main one and that focusing too heavily on the emotional aspect is very dangerous.
The most important trait of a great leader (over and above ability and integrity), I believe, is rationality. (Buffett says this is also the most important trait in a successful investor). Why rationality? Because virtually every decision a leader makes has to be based on looking at the facts, rationally integrating them and drawing conclusions. Many thousands (if not tens of thousands) of decisions have to be made (with or without others’ input) in order to run a successful business (see Introduction, this volume). These include: what products (and product attributes) to make; where and how to make them; what people to hire and how to assign responsibilities; discovering a competitive strategy; financing the enterprise; managing risk; understanding the law and the economy; projecting trends into the future; anticipating threats; balancing the short term and the long term; constantly changing the organization to meet changing conditions, etc. And this only scratches the surface. Decision making is hard mental work (Chapter 25). Leading a company requires a never-ending process of thinking. Motivating people to work hard at doing the wrong thing only hastens the organization’s destruction. Thus cognition must come before motivation.
Consider how many thousands of very hard working and emotionally passionate people were involved in America’s current housing/financial crisis - but they were making a deluge of wrong decisions (the government’s key role in starting the whole mess, for example the Fed’s excessively low interest rates and the creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to push high risk loans and buy high risk securities notwithstanding).
One of the few top 20 banks that did not deal in subprime loans or invest in high risk securities was BB&T, a mid-Atlantic regional holding company (see Chapter 20, this volume). Its core value: rationality. Its CEO told me a long time before the blow-up that what the large banks were doing was irrational. They were making huge short-term profits, undoubtedly accompanied by soaring positive emotions, but the house of cards soon collapsed.
Emotion is no substitute for rationality.
Emotions about one’s job and career as a source of life happiness
Most people spend a substantial part of their lives at work. Thus it is important that, if possible, they pick a job or career that they personally like, preferably love. In times of financial crisis, people can be forced to take jobs that are less than satisfactory but this should not stop them from looking for something better - even during mid-life or later. To do this they have to identify what they really like based on trying different things and then introspecting - and then acting. Pleasurable jobs entail mental challenge (Chapter 6), doing something one loves, and steady progress in building one’s knowledge and expertise.
One of the most common tradeoffs people have to consider is money vs the job itself (i.e. the nature of the work). The work that you like the most may not be the type that pays the best. Another is career vs. family. Usually one cannot maximize everything. Again it is important to introspect to identify one’s true value hierarchy. But existing value hierarchies don’t have to be permanent. They can be chosen - and changed by a process of thought. By choosing and pursuing the right values (including those outside of work) and understanding their relationship to emotion, one can be the agent of one’s own happiness.
CONCLUSION
In order not to be the helpless victim of one’s emotions, one has to understand their causes. Even though emotions are automatic responses programmed by the subconscious, their causes can be identified and understood. Moreover, emotions can be changed by changing their causes. Further, one has a choice as to how one acts in the face of emotions. There is no innate conflict between reason and emotion. A key to happiness and the harmony of reason and emotion is good introspection.
Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and Personality, Vol. l. New York: Columbia University Press.
Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 50, 154-178.
Brodie, J. (2008). King of Kool. Fortune, September 1, pp. 51-61.
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., and Beck, A. T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 17-31.
Clark, D. A., and Beck, A. T. (1999). Scientific Foundations of Cognitive Theory of Therapy and Depression. New York: Wiley.
Grandey, A. A. (2008). Emotions at work: a review and research agenda. To appear in C. Cooper and J. Barling (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 234-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Humphrey, R. H. (2008). Affect and Emotion. Charlotte, NC: Information Age publishing.
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.
Locke, E. A. (2009). It’s time we brought introspection out of the closet. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 24-25.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence. American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
Peikoff, L. (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton.
Analysis of personal emotions
Divide into small groups. Each group member, working alone at first, is to identify an emotion that he or she felt at one time on a job. Name the emotion. Identify the relevant object or objects, the relevant cognitions (beliefs, thoughts) and the nature of the value appraisal(s) that caused the emotion. Each member then presents his or her analysis to the other group members. One member from each group could be elected to present one example to the whole class, if they are willing.
Changing an emotion
Divide into groups. Each member, working alone, identifies a “problem emotion or emotions” - an inappropriate past emotion or a pattern that he or she would like to change. Each identifies ways in which they could change the object (in the future), correct erroneous beliefs, and/or modify value standards. Identify problems they might encounter doing this, for example defensiveness, discouragement, self-image, difficulty with introspection. Have each member perform mental experiments to anticipate how changing one or more of the three causes could change the emotion. If any member is willing, one example could be reported to the whole class. (Instructor should strongly urge any member suffering from depression to seek professional help.)