Coping With Angry EmployeesPosted by Hovmand Merritt on January 26th, 2021 Does your management say items like: "Our employees aren't angry! We chance a happy ship! They get frustrated sometimes, or upset, and we've got one guy that's disgruntled, but we never get angry!" This popular anger management way is called "denial." If we have no idea how to solve an issue, we only pretend that it isn't there. Anger comes in many forms, every one of them unpleasant. That is why we are so quick to deny it of existence. That way, the thing is "solved;" we have been off the hook. It's a good thing that we don't have to solve it because we have no idea of the best way to solve such problems. We'd only fail if we tried. We didn't head to school to master anger management. We feel inadequately willing to manage it. We deny the situation in order to prevent the humiliating expose of our own inadequate preparation. In the meantime, our angry employees are walking around with unresolved anger problems in their hearts. They become discouraged and depressed. We wonder, "What happened on the morale around here? Why is production falling off? Why is turnover really at high point? Why are they taking so much sick leave?" When our employees' energy is bound up in unresolved anger, there's not much left to do the task that should be done. They carry on getting their paychecks the same. Anger doesn't have to erupt into violence to look at a chunk out of our own bottom line. Suppressed, subterranean anger poisons our corporate atmosphere and does its silent damage 7 days a week, year in year out. "Denial", therefore, is definitely an costly "solution" to the issue of employee anger. It is often a luxury that no business can afford. Why do managers "deny" that their "happy" troops might possibly have unresolved anger of their bosoms? They deny there's anger in the ranks simply because they have attitudes about anger, attitudes they acquired years ago and never outgrew: "Anger is scary and dangerous. I don't want to touch it having a ten foot pole." "Anger is a challenge which may use up which is not my energy and attention. Why don't we just fire him and save ourselves plenty of trouble." "Anger isn't 'nice,' and angry people aren't 'nice'. I don't want to speak to people." "An angry body's a threat, and I haven't learned how to handle threats inside optimal way, merely the wrong way with counter threats." In addition to the attitudes about it nasty emotion, we've got attitudes about ourselves as problem solvers: "Life is extremely pleasant when I solve problems." "Life is extremely unpleasant when I don't!" "I feel out of control when I have a difficulty that I cannot solve. "That makes me angry! I don't want to become angry because anger is painful and scary." "If I pretend that the challenge doesn't exist, maybe it'll disappear." That's no chance to handle our lives! We don't realize that we have these attitudes deep down within our psyche. Neither can we know that these attitudes are predisposing us to behave in the same counter-productive way time after time. Our behavior doesn't change because our attitudes have not changed. Jack is a top salesman. Out on the trail he could be all charm and smiles. Back in the ranch, he has anger attitudes. For one, he is predisposed to obtain angry whenever he doesn't get his way, at this time! Jack is angry at Nancy for not typing his sales reports fast enough. He wants them "now!" He doesn't understand why she shouldn't do what he wants, when he wants it. To him, it's really a perfectly reasonable request. When Jack is angry, everyone inside unit knows it. He slams drawers, he barks at everyone on the horizon, he clams up, he sulks and pouts. In other words, he could be manifesting his anger in the same way he did when he was four years old. He hasn't learned anything about anger in forty years. We all get angry from time to time. Most of us are able to get through these painful periods without making our co-workers miserable with this inappropriate behavior. Jack never had an anger problem until he became Section Chief. It seems that his promotion gave him a license to abuse his fellow citizens that they did not seem to have before. Jack is displaying several main characteristics with the angry employee: He is angrier than he has to be, He isn't conscious his anger is out of proportion on the provocation. check my reference could not make any effort to handle his anger as being a mature, responsible man. He doesn't realise why he should learn how. To Jack, his request for instant service is reasonable or rational. The rest of us notice that his anger is just not rational or under conscious control. The more Steve, his Department Head, efforts to make Jack "understand the inappropriateness of his behavior," the angrier Jack gets. Jack doesn't want to know, he wants his report and, so far as he is able to see, Steve has been doing absolutely nothing to speed up the process. He is angry at Steve for letting Nancy "slack off." What Steve couldn't know was that Jack had arrive at define his worth as a part of regards to getting what he wants. He acquired this attitude toward himself throughout the formative stages of his personality. Jack has plenty of attitudes: "It is my right to obtain my way. If I aren't getting it. I am nothing! I cannot allow that that occurs It's too scary. It is unacceptable!" "I am special. I am eligible for special consideration. It makes me angry when I avoid getting what I am permitted." "When I have to wait to obtain what I want, I feel beyond control. That feeling is painful. I want to have respite from my pain as soon as I can." "When I am kept waiting, it forces me to waste time. Waste is irresponsible. It makes me feel doing a crime. That is painful, too." "Wasting time and irresponsibility are wrong. Wrongness makes me angry. I has to be right rather than wrong. I must be perfect." Jack never outgrew these attitudes; he carried them into adulthood where they are determining his behavior even today. Each time we react to Jack judging by these immature attitudes, we confirm him in their fictitious role. He is so busy defending his "specialness" that he never carries a chance to question the basis of his inappropriate behavior. Steve is learning that many everyone has these anger attitudes and that they can not be reasoned from them. He has also learned that this issue here is not Nancy's typing speed, or her working arrangements. The issue is not even "getting my way." The real problem to be addressed is Jack's anger when he isn't getting what he wants when he wants it. The most important thing that Steve learned was that they had the potency of choice: to answer Jack's anger the old way, which never worked, or to control his anger in a manner that makes things better as an alternative to worse. He chose never to defend Nancy, (Nancy isn't doing anything wrong, she does not require defending). He chose never to defend himself. He didn't say, "You can't speak to me this way," because 'manner of speech' is just not the matter. It is a distraction from your real issue. It would have poured kerosene on Jack's fire. He chose not to look at Jack's demands as a reflection on his competence like a manager. He chose not to adopt Jack's negative, unpleasant behavior personally, as though it were a representation on his worth like a person. He made a decision to retain his self-respect on an appropriate basis. He could remind himself from the concept of self-respect: it is the feeling that I am an advisable man notwithstanding my faults and imperfections. Jack cannot take that from him with his posturings. He identified Jack's imperious behavior as mere mischief, which suggests, "that which does not need to get done." Steve surely could put this mischief in its proper perspective. "It's only Jack being Jack again." He would not overreact to Jack's provocation. He did not try and make Jack "understand." He identified his very own anger at Jack for causing him and Nancy this grievance, but he previously learned how to manage his anger. He place it in perspective. Jack's anger wasn't the end of the world, it absolutely was just a nuisance. He would not "solve" the anger problem by firing Jack immediately. He would not get personal revenge by depriving the firm from the talents of an imperfect, sometimes unpleasant employee. He failed to give up in discouragement. He failed to stay at home moral judgment on Jack for his disruptive behavior. Jack is not "wrong," he could be merely imperfect with his fantastic imperfections can be unpleasant. He didn't hold on to his anger. It was as part of his way. He chose to "neglected." He could sort against each other. He what food was in control over himself. He didn't make an effort to "control" Jack. He could come up with a rational choice in the non-rational, regrettable situation. Steve was able to adopt himself through this process in the matter of seconds. He had learned the drill. He knew the best way to find the meaning of Jack's mischief by identifying the hidden purpose with the behavior. Jack was making her feel powerless and out of control. That feeling told him that they was at an energy struggle with Jack over who might make Nancy do what and the way fast. This insight gave Steve a fresh replacement for make: he could pull back in a very tug of war, or he could drop the rope and end the electricity struggle on his terms. He chose to drop the rope. He ignore it. It was only mischief on Jack's part. It didn't need to get done. What really needed to be done was to resolve Jack's anger problem within the right way so everyone may go to work. Steve had learned to identify employee mischief a block away. He had also learned how you can disengage himself emotionally, not from the employee, but from his unacceptable, provocative behavior: He did not take Jack's behavior personally, as a wipeout of his self-respect. He reminded himself that "I am a respectable man notwithstanding Jack's negative comments." This strategy is called 'self talk.' It keeps him on an even keel. He failed to take Jacks words literally, as though he really meant what he said. Jack is "firing for Effect," trying to use Steve's own vulnerabilities against him. He disengaged from his or her own predisposition to generate counter mischief: Steve didn't make these mistakes from the existing days. He made a brand new choice using his adult judgment with an informed basis. He knew that Jack's anger was painful and away from control. It was his appropriate responsibility to manage effectively along with his employee's psychic pain as they would the physical pain of the cut finger. Just while he was happy to perform the Heimlich maneuver if a person were choking, do i think the he happy to give "emotional first aid" in the event it became necessary. It was necessary now. Steve made a good choice. He cut on the chase. He decided to address the matter of Jack's anger. Steve decided to say, "It making you angry when Nancy takes so very long, right." In causeing this to be choice, Steve was utilizing an anger management technique called validate. Steve knew that Jack's accusation was not a sound one. He knew it had not been rational, it had been determined by self-serving attitudes. He didn't increase the risk for mistake of correcting Jack's thinking, which could are making things worse for anyone. He knew which he cannot relieve this pain by invalidating it. In calling Jack's anger by its rightful name, Steve was giving Jack "permission" to own this unpleasant, disruptive emotion. He did not "fight the impression." He validated the anger, "I don't blame you for feeling like that." Jack heard his anger being validated, perhaps the first time in their life. He felt which he have been heard and understood by somebody that knew what he was discussing. He felt that they was being validated as being a person. The pain of his grievance was relieved. The second validate is made for Jack. He heard himself being treated with respect regardless of his unpleasant behavior. He respected Steve for doing that. If he doesn't respect his superior, he can not cooperate with him. He will make destructive mischief instead. The third validation is good for Steve. He had the courage to deal with the scary problem of Jack's anger as opposed to defending Nancy. He had used good judgment. He replaced his good intentions with real intentions. He had earned the directly to respect himself being a worthwhile human being with an identity of his very own, not merely a role opposite Jack's immature role. There are two sides to the anger coin: Jack is certainly one and Nancy could be the other. Nancy must know what to accomplish with Jack's anger if it hits. As part of the Anger Management Process, Steve prepared Nancy to handle Jack's anger on a whole new basis. He broke the challenge into its components so she could see what she was against. Do not take it personally. It is not a reflection you. Do not defend - about to catch guilty of a criminal offence and you also require no defense. Do not become counter-angry. That just prolongs the challenge. Do not attempt to make Jack "understand" the realities in the situation. He is not interested. Identify the real issue: the problem is that he is angry Jack is making mischief. He really wants to control so he can get his way sooner, also, he wants revenge. He really wants to hurt Nancy as she "hurt" him. These are negative purposes. They need to become identified so they could be turned around inside proper way. Jack reminded Nancy that she could tend to keep her self respect in spite of Jack's anger. She is often a worthwhile person whether she pleases him or not. As a self respecting, independent individual, she, too, can tend to validate Jack's anger, which may be the real issue. She, too, can tell, "I'm sorry you are so angry, but I'll get it done by 4:30 today." When Jack came by to voice his complaint concerning the "service," Nancy did her anger Homework: She disengaged through the mischief, not from Jack. She could "Consider the Source"; she reminded herself that it's only Jack sounding off again. She didn't hold on to her protestations of innocence, she chose to allow them to go. When she made that choice, she felt relief from the pressure, tension and stress the anger situations ended up causing her. In letting go, she didn't feel beyond control, she felt responsible for all. She was thus, making this happen in the present. She was deciding to survive her terms, not reacting to another woman's. She had her own independent identity. As Jack went on and on, Nancy rode out. She didn't prolong the method with explanations from the situation that Jack didn't care about anyway. She saved her breath. Nancy noticed that this storm blew over in half the time. Jack walked away conversing with himself, but he calmed down much sooner than he used to when we got in his way making it his anger worse. Nancy was angry at Jack's abusive behavior. We relieve pent up anger giving people choices which they didn't know that they had. Steve has learned what among those choices. Instead of ignoring Nancy's painful resentment, he validated it; "You have to be very angry at Jack for dumping on you like that. If you ensure that it stays in, it's going to make you sick. One way to drain against each other of one's system is to publish him an anger letter. It's not for him, it's in your case." Nancy wrote her anger out in a very letter to Jack and then tore it. Steve asked her how she felt afterward. Nancy said that they felt "good." In debriefing Nancy, he helped her to break this "good feeling" into its many components: feelings of relief, the strength of choice, trust in her judgment, control, accomplishment, success, confidence and independence. These good feelings are all components of self respect. Nancy had done an anger homework in her behalf. She had earned the right to respect herself. Self respecting employees are more motivated, more productive and more free to become creative than employees who are stuffed with self doubts, anxieties and feelings of inadequacy to cope. Nancy was able to work with an unpleasant anger situation as an chance to enhance the way she felt about herself being a person in the world. Even Jack benefitted from Nancy's new way of managing her anger. He expected to become met with scorn, invalidation, criticism, excuses, denials and many types of one other counter-productive defenses that people use when they don't know the best way to manage anger. Instead, he felt that Nancy had heard his complaint without demeaning him being a person. She had not compounded his anger as people usually did. He didn't feel "good" in regards to the conversation, but he was aware he felt "less worse." He felt rest from the stress, tension and stress he was causing himself along with his unrealistic attitudes. To him, that has been progress. Steve had taken the sting away from a potentially inflammatory situation. There were no cuts or bruises, no one got fired. Under this new regimen, Jack's anger attacks came farther and farther apart, and they ended sooner each time. He remained a productive, valued employee with the firm.Like it? Share it! More by this author |