Coping With Angry EmployeesDoes your management say things like: "Our employees aren't angry! We chance a happy ship! They get frustrated sometimes, or upset, and we've one guy who's disgruntled, but we never get angry!" This popular anger management strategy is called "denial." If we have no idea the best way to solve a challenge, we merely pretend that it isn't there.
Anger also comes in various forms, all of them unpleasant. That is why we are so quick to deny it out of existence. That way, the problem is "solved;" we are off the hook. It's a good thing that we don't need to solve it because we don't know the best way to solve such problems. We'd only fail if we tried. We didn't check out school to understand anger management. We feel inadequately willing to manage it. We deny the problem in order to prevent the humiliating expose of our inadequate preparation.
In the meantime, our angry employees are walking around with unresolved anger problems inside their hearts. They become discouraged and depressed. We wonder, "What happened for the morale around here? Why is production falling off? Why is turnover really at high level? Why are they taking a great deal sick leave?" When our employees' energy is bound up in unresolved anger, there's not much left to complete the project that should be done. They keep on getting their paychecks the same.
Anger doesn't always have to erupt into violence to take a chunk out individuals bottom line. Suppressed, subterranean anger poisons our corporate atmosphere and does its silent damage every single day, year in year out. "Denial", therefore, is a very costly "solution" to the challenge of employee anger. It is really a luxury that no business are able to afford. Why do managers "deny" that their "happy" troops might possibly have unresolved anger of their bosoms?
They deny there's anger inside ranks because they have attitudes about anger, attitudes which 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 an issue that might undertake an excessive amount of my energy and attention. Why don't we just fire him and save ourselves a great deal of trouble."
"Anger isn't 'nice,' and angry people aren't 'nice'. I don't want to talk with people."
"An angry person is a threat, and I haven't learned the best way to handle threats within the correct way, merely the wrong way with counter threats."
In addition to your attitudes about this nasty emotion, we've attitudes about ourselves as problem solvers:
"Life is quite pleasant when I solve problems."
"Life is quite unpleasant when I don't!"
"I feel away from control when I have an issue 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 situation doesn't exist, maybe it'll disappear."
That's not a way to handle our lives! We don't realize we have these attitudes deep down in your psyche. Neither can we realize 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 never changed.
Jack can be a top salesman. Out on the street he or she is all charm and smiles. Back with the ranch, she has anger attitudes. For one, he is predisposed to obtain angry whenever he isn't getting his way, right now! 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 within the unit knows it. He slams drawers, he barks at everyone in sight, he clams up, he sulks and pouts. In other words, he's manifesting his anger just as he did when he was four years old. He hasn't learned a thing about anger in 40 years. We all get angry every now and then. Most of us are able to have 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 which he would not have before. Jack is displaying several main characteristics of the angry employee:
He is angrier than he has to be,
He isn't conscious that his anger is out of proportion towards the provocation.
He can't make effort to handle his anger like a mature, responsible person.
He doesn't see why he should learn how.
To Jack, his get instant service is reasonable or rational. The rest of us see that his anger isn't rational or under conscious control. The more Steve, his Department Head, tries to make Jack "understand the inappropriateness of his behavior," the angrier Jack gets. Jack doesn't want to know, he wants his report and, as far as the guy can see, Steve is performing absolutely nothing to accelerate the method. He is angry at Steve for letting Nancy "slack off."
What Steve did not know was that Jack had arrive at define his worth as being a person in terms of getting what he wants. He acquired this attitude toward himself throughout the formative stages of his personality. Jack has a good amount of attitudes:
"It is my right to obtain my way. If I avoid getting it. I am nothing! I cannot allow
that that occurs It's too scary. It is unacceptable!"
"I am special. I am entitled to special consideration. It makes me angry when I aren't getting what I am permitted."
"When I have to wait to acquire what I want, I feel from control. That feeling is painful. I want to obtain rest from my pain as fast as I can."
"When I am kept waiting, it forces me to waste time. Waste is irresponsible. It makes me feel doing a criminal offence. That is painful, too."
"Wasting some time to irresponsibility are wrong. Wrongness makes me angry. I must be right rather than wrong. I should be perfect."
Jack never outgrew these attitudes; he carried them into adulthood where these are determining his behavior today. Each time we reply to Jack on the basis of these immature attitudes, we confirm him as part of his fictitious role. He is so busy defending his "specialness" which he never has a possiblity to question the premise of his inappropriate behavior.
Steve is learning a large number of people have these anger attitudes and that they can cannot be reasoned away from them. He has also learned that this issue here is not Nancy's typing speed, or her time-table. The issue is just not even "getting my way." The real problem to get addressed is Jack's anger when he does not get what he wants when he wants it. The most important thing that Steve learned was he had the potency of choice: to respond to Jack's anger that old way, which never worked, or to deal with his anger in a manner that makes things better rather than worse.
He chose to never defend Nancy, (Nancy isn't doing anything wrong, she does not require defending).
He chose not to defend himself. He didn't say, "You can't talk with me doing this," because 'manner of speech' isn't the problem. It is really a distraction through the real issue. It would have poured kerosene on Jack's fire.
He chose not to take Jack's demands as a reflection on his competence as being a manager.
He chose not to consider Jack's negative, unpleasant behavior personally, like it were an expression on his worth as a person.
He made a decision to retain his self-respect by using an appropriate basis.
He could remind himself with the concise explaination self-respect: oahu is the feeling that I am a rewarding person in spite of my faults and imperfections. Jack cannot take that from him regarding his posturings.
He identified Jack's imperious behavior as mere mischief, which means, "that which does not need to get done." Steve was able to put this mischief rolling around in its proper perspective. "It's only Jack being Jack again."
He didn't overreact to Jack's provocation.
He failed to try to make Jack "understand."
He identified their own anger at Jack for causing him and Nancy this grievance, but he previously learned the way to manage his anger. He use it in perspective. Jack's anger wasn't the final in the world, it had been just a nuisance.
He failed to "solve" the anger problem by firing Jack right then.
He failed to get personal revenge by depriving the firm with the talents associated with an imperfect, sometimes unpleasant employee.
He didn't stop trying in discouragement.
He failed to stay at home moral judgment on Jack for his disruptive behavior. Jack just isn't "wrong," he is merely imperfect and his imperfections might be unpleasant.
He would not hold on to his anger. It was as part of his way. He made a decision to "neglected."
He was able to sort against each other. this page was at charge of himself. He didn't try and "control" Jack.
He could make a rational choice inside a non-rational, regrettable situation.
Steve was able to take himself through this process in a very matter of seconds. He had learned the drill. He knew how to find madness of Jack's mischief by identifying the hidden purpose of the behavior. Jack was making him feel powerless and away from control. That feeling told him which he was in a power have a problem with Jack over who might make Nancy do what and how fast. This insight gave Steve a fresh choice to make: he could pull out 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 neglected. It was only mischief on Jack's part. It didn't need to get done. What really needed to become done would have been to resolve Jack's anger problem in the optimal way so everyone might go to work.
Steve had learned to identify employee mischief a block away. He had also learned how to disengage himself emotionally, not through the employee, but from his unacceptable, provocative behavior:
He did not take Jack's behavior personally, as being a wipeout of his self-respect.
He reminded himself that "I am a worthwhile man regardless of Jack's negative comments." This way is called 'self talk.' It keeps him on an even keel.
He would not take Jacks words literally, like he really meant what he explained. Jack is only "firing for Effect," looking to use Steve's own vulnerabilities against him.
He disengaged from his own predisposition to create counter mischief:
Steve didn't make these mistakes from the existing days. He made a fresh choice using his adult judgment while on an informed basis. He knew that Jack's anger was painful and out of control. It was his appropriate responsibility to handle effectively regarding his employee's psychic pain as they would the physical pain of your cut finger. Just as they was prepared to perform the Heimlich maneuver if someone else were choking, do i think the he willing to give "emotional first aid" in the event it became necessary. It was necessary now. Steve made the best choice. He cut to the chase. He made a decision to address the problem of Jack's anger.
Steve decided to say, "It enables you to angry when Nancy takes way too long, right." In thus, making this choice, Steve was utilizing an anger management technique called validate. Steve knew that Jack's accusation had not been a valid one. He knew it was not rational, it absolutely was based on self-serving attitudes. He would not increase the risk for mistake of correcting Jack's thinking, which could made things worse for all. He knew which he could not relieve this pain by invalidating it. In calling Jack's anger by its rightful name, Steve was giving Jack "permission" to get this unpleasant, disruptive emotion. He would not "fight the impression." He validated the anger, "I don't blame you for feeling like that."
Jack heard his anger being validated, perhaps initially as part of his life. Business Mediation Sydney felt which he was heard and understood by someone who knew what he was speaking about. He felt that they was being validated being a person. The pain of his grievance was relieved. The second validate is perfect for Jack. He heard himself receiving treatment with respect despite 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 made for Steve. He had the courage to cope with the scary problem of Jack's anger instead of defending Nancy. He had used good judgment. He replaced his good intentions with real intentions. He had earned the to certainly respect himself as a worthwhile human being having an identity of his own, not only a role opposite Jack's immature role.
There are two sides to this anger coin: Jack is but one and Nancy may be the other. Nancy should know what to do with Jack's anger when it hits. As part with the Anger Management Process, Steve prepared Nancy to deal with Jack's anger on a brand new basis. He broke the issue on to its components so she could see what she was facing.
Do not take it personally. It is not a representation you.
Do not defend - about to catch see post of a criminal offense so you require no defense.
Do not become counter-angry. That just prolongs the problem.
Do not try to make Jack "understand" the realities from the situation. He is not interested.
Identify the true issue: the issue is that he's angry
Jack is making mischief. He desires to control so he'll get his way sooner, also, he wants
revenge. He wants to hurt Nancy as she "hurt" him. These are negative purposes. They need to be identified so which they might be turned around inside the correct way.
Jack reminded Nancy that she could tend to keep her self respect despite Jack's anger. She can be a worthwhile individual whether she pleases him or otherwise not. As a self respecting, independent individual, she, too, can choose to validate Jack's anger, which is the real issue. She, too, know, "I'm sorry you're so angry, but I'll get it produced by 4:30 today."
When Jack came by to voice his complaint in regards to the "service," Nancy did her anger Homework: She disengaged from your 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 thought we would let them go. When she made that choice, she felt reduced pressure, tension and stress these anger situations have been causing her. In letting go, she didn't feel out of control, she felt responsible. She was causeing this to be happen within the present. She was determining to survive her terms, not reacting to someone else's. She had her very own independent identity.
As Jack went on and also on, Nancy rode against each other. She didn't prolong the process with explanations of the situation that Jack didn't love anyway. She saved her breath. Nancy noticed the storm blew over in the rest. Jack walked away actually talking to himself, but he settled down much earlier than he accustomed to when we got in the way and made his anger worse.
Nancy was angry at Jack's abusive behavior. We relieve suppressed anger by offering people choices that they couldn't know they had. Steve has learned what some of those choices are. Instead of ignoring Nancy's painful resentment, he validated it; "You should be very angry at Jack for dumping giving you that way. If you keep it in, it'll make you sick. One way to drain against each other of the product is to write him an anger letter. It's not for him, it's for you personally."
Nancy wrote her anger out in the letter to Jack and after that tore it down. Steve asked her how she felt afterward. Nancy said that she felt "good." In debriefing Nancy, he helped her to interrupt 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 very own behalf. She had earned the directly to respect herself. Self respecting employees are more motivated, more productive and much more free to become creative than employees who will be stuffed with self doubts, anxieties and feelings of inadequacy to cope. Nancy could work with an unpleasant anger situation being an chance to help the way she felt about herself as being a person inside the world.
Even Jack benefitted from Nancy's new strategy for managing her anger. He expected to become met with scorn, invalidation, criticism, excuses, denials and the other counter-productive defenses that people use once they don't know the best way to manage anger. Instead, he felt that Nancy had heard his complaint without demeaning him like a person. She had not compounded his anger as people usually did. He didn't feel "good" regarding the conversation, but he was aware that they felt "less worse." He felt respite from the pressure, tension and stress which he ended up causing himself together with his unrealistic attitudes. To him, that's progress. Steve had taken the sting out of 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 so they ended sooner every time. He remained a productive, valued employee of the firm.
|
Article Directory /
Arts, Business, Computers, Finance, Games, Health, Home, Internet, News, Other, Reference, Shopping, Society, Sports
|
