Is Your Anger Useful--or Destructive?

Over the years I’ve met with clients and business people who were resistant to working with a colleague because he or she was an “angry asshole.” But when I analyzed their statement by talking to other colleagues, I found just as I expected that so-called “angry” people were a very mixed bag. Their anger differed significantly. Sometimes a person's anger served a useful purpose and other times it did not. But the differences are rarely clear to most people. What I learned was that it was often helpful and enlightening to push back on “useful” anger, but that I was liable to get burned by another person’s anger.

FYI: It's important to understand that some religious people in business think that all anger is evil. Don't fall for that line.  Some anger is useful, motivational and even redemptive. Of course, some anger is also destructive, serving no purpose except for an asshole to vent.

I was around an awful lot of destructive anger growing up--so rather than backing off, I learned to analyze most anger to figure out whether it had any basis in fact. The anger was nearly always sourced in my mother. By the time I was in high school, I could usually figure out her anger and decide whether to just listen and forget it, whether I should make some changes, or whether to just stroke her and agree that life was really bad. It took a lot of confidence to deal with her, but like most adolescents I could figure out what I'd be rewarded for and what not. As a general rule, if there are rewards for behavior, adolescents can figure out whether to charge ahead or back off to gain the rewards of peace faster than adults .

Over the years I’ve met with clients and business people who were resistant to working with a colleague because he or she was an “angry asshole.” But when I analyzed their statement by talking to other colleagues, I found just as I expected that so-called “angry” people were a very mixed bag. Their anger differed significantly. Sometimes a person's anger served a useful purpose and other times it did not. But the differences are rarely clear to most people. What I learned was that it was often helpful and enlightening to push back on “useful” anger, but that I was liable to get burned by another person’s anger.

FYI: It's important to understand that some religious people in business think that all anger is evil. Don't fall for that line.  Some anger is useful, motivational and even redemptive. Of course, some anger is also destructive, serving no purpose except for an asshole to vent.

I was around an awful lot of destructive anger growing up--so rather than backing off, I learned to analyze most anger to figure out whether it had any basis in fact. The anger was nearly always sourced in my mother. By the time I was in high school, I could usually figure out her anger and decide whether to just listen and forget it, whether I should make some changes, or whether to just stroke her and agree that life was really bad. It took a lot of confidence to deal with her, but like most adolescents I could figure out what I'd be rewarded for and what not. As a general rule, if there are rewards for behavior, adolescents can figure out whether to charge ahead or back off to gain the rewards of peace faster than adults .

It was not until graduate seminary where I found out the meaning of anger. In my pastoral care studies (1962) I stumbled across a very insightful statement by St. Thomas Aquinas: “Without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable and crimes unchecked.” That single statement caused me to think even more clearly about anger.

And so early on I usually just listened and anlyzed in order to decide how to respond. It was a competency that added to my value as a church pastor and then an executive coach. A few years ago, while working through some attachment theory issues, I discovered still more clarity with John Bowlby’s distinction between functional and dysfunctional anger.  I glommed onto his ideas, realizing that they could be highly valuable for myself and many others.

Bowlby on attachment and anger
Bowlby studied both the secure and insecure people. As adults, the secure (autonomous) are those who view their early relationships as coherent, balanced, consistent and objective. Given a realisstic opportunity, most adults and adolescents can readily talk about their background, warts and all. They are also able to discuss their own experiences, both favorably and unfavorably. The secure also value their relationships as influential in their own development. And so, these people are usually able to work collaboratively with others—not playing power games like withholding significant information and one-upmanship. They are also typically trustworthy and they readily demonstrate the ability to trust others.

The insecure, in contrast, normally act outside of one or more of the above conditions. Bowlby noted that the association between anger and the insecure will be especially strong in adults with insecure relationship issues. Though there is rarely a genetic component, he indicated that the childhood experiences of the insecure “predispose” them to uncontrolled anger (see online:  Google Scholar: Mikulincer, 1998).

The insecure tend to actually experience much stronger negative emotions, have less constructive goals, report much greater hostility, and show less awareness of the degree to which they are physiologically aroused. These same insecure people often override their anger with suppression and repression: they “stuff” it. These are activities which over the long term can significantly impact their own physical and mental health. Bowlby refers to this as the “anger of anguish” and despair, often demonstrating serious frustration and emotional responses—like very strong venting. I have a work friend who regularly complains about the “stupid” actions of differing people. Some may think the person is really a great guy, but his continual complaining is “covert” dysfunctional anger. You can occasionally hear this anger in extreme forms on talk radio—and see it in road rage situations.

Over the long term, these people pay a high price in mental and physical health. It shows up in conflict escalation, emotional distance, loss of social respect and physical health problems. Oh yeah, when this anger is regularly overt, the better companies get rid of these people.

In contrast, other studies (see Google Scholar: Mikulincer and Orbach, 1995), find that secure persons are able to demonstrate anger emotionally without being overwhelmed by the negative emotions. This plays out as the ability to express anger feelings without being overwhelmed by anger emotions and reasons. So, they can channel their anger toward productive objectives, avoid ongoing rumination on their anger feelings and actually experience little emotional impact. The secure person’s anger seems to reflect their positive beliefs about the world and themselves. Bowlby refers to this as the “anger of hope.” The “hope” is that the anger will enable positive change.

Predicting anger
My experience suggests that the way most people will use anger is fairly predictable. If they tend to be fundamentally trusting of others, there’ll probably be less anger and more interpersonal problem solving. In fact, the secure will often tell you they’re angry, rather than just blast away. In other words, their anger becomes a strategic action. In stark contrast, the insecure will blast away and even act vengefully with significant hostility. Often cynical and distrusting, they tend to use dysfunctional anger in destructive ways.

I rarely attempt to deal immediately with a person's dysfunctional anger. That's not the time to problem solve. When the issue is important, I’ll come back at a later date and problem solve with the individual. In contrast, if the anger is essentially functional, it's usually calling for changes from staff. In that case you can sometmes listen to the anger and start questioning and problem-solving with the individual. Functional anger is usually a sign of high priority, passion and desire for change, much in contrast with dysfunctional anger.

Because of my early experiences as a church pastor and seminary professor--both highly constricting roles--I usually hid my anger--much to my chagrin. Today. I’d be much more upfront with my anger. For example, I remember a couple instances on a church board when I was up front with my anger about some potential decisions. Both episodes were viewed rather positively in people’s minds, one of them resulting in a thoughtful bit of group change. My anger--and passion--were evidently important and very clear.

As a father of three daughters, on a rare occasion I might make my point with functional anger, usually achieving my objective. I thought my daughters didn’t know what I was doing. Boy, was I in the dark! Before writing this, I talked to one of my daughters and she responded with hilarious laughter. They all knew what was going on. . . that I was elucidating a priority. . .and that they’d better pay attention and make a change. This same daughter responded that once, in a conversation with a girl friend who was having difficulty with her dad, she commiserated, “Yeah, my dad can be a real bastard too. But actually, he’s very loving and supportive 99% of the time. The anger is just for show!” She knew I was using functional anger!  I’ve done the same thing on a few occasions with a client—and it always paid off. But if you decide to try it, start out with a slightly raised voice—it takes practice.

And so early on I usually just listened and anlyzed in order to decide how to respond. It was a competency that added to my value as a church pastor and then an executive coach. A few years ago, while working through some attachment theory issues, I discovered still more clarity with John Bowlby’s distinction between functional and dysfunctional anger.  I glommed onto his ideas, realizing that they could be highly valuable for myself and many others.

Bowlby on attachment and anger
Bowlby studied both the secure and insecure people. As adults, the secure (autonomous) are those who view their early relationships as coherent, balanced, consistent and objective. Given a realisstic opportunity, most adults and adolescents can readily talk about their background, warts and all. They are also able to discuss their own experiences, both favorably and unfavorably. The secure also value their relationships as influential in their own development. And so, these people are usually able to work collaboratively with others—not playing power games like withholding significant information and one-upmanship. They are also typically trustworthy and they readily demonstrate the ability to trust others.

The insecure, in contrast, normally act outside of one or more of the above conditions. Bowlby noted that the association between anger and the insecure will be especially strong in adults with insecure relationship issues. Though there is rarely a genetic component, he indicated that the childhood experiences of the insecure “predispose” them to uncontrolled anger (see online:  Google Scholar: Mikulincer, 1998).

The insecure tend to actually experience much stronger negative emotions, have less constructive goals, report much greater hostility, and show less awareness of the degree to which they are physiologically aroused. These same insecure people often override their anger with suppression and repression: they “stuff” it. These are activities which over the long term can significantly impact their own physical and mental health. Bowlby refers to this as the “anger of anguish” and despair, often demonstrating serious frustration and emotional responses—like very strong venting. I have a work friend who regularly complains about the “stupid” actions of differing people. Some may think the person is really a great guy, but his continual complaining is “covert” dysfunctional anger. You can occasionally hear this anger in extreme forms on talk radio—and see it in road rage situations.

Over the long term, these people pay a high price in mental and physical health. It shows up in conflict escalation, emotional distance, loss of social respect and physical health problems. Oh yeah, when this anger is regularly overt, the better companies get rid of these people.

In contrast, other studies (see Google Scholar: Mikulincer and Orbach, 1995), find that secure persons are able to demonstrate anger emotionally without being overwhelmed by the negative emotions. This plays out as the ability to express anger feelings without being overwhelmed by anger emotions and reasons. So, they can channel their anger toward productive objectives, avoid ongoing rumination on their anger feelings and actually experience little emotional impact. The secure person’s anger seems to reflect their positive beliefs about the world and themselves. Bowlby refers to this as the “anger of hope.” The “hope” is that the anger will enable positive change.

Predicting anger
My experience suggests that the way most people will use anger is fairly predictable. If they tend to be fundamentally trusting of others, there’ll probably be less anger and more interpersonal problem solving. In fact, the secure will often tell you they’re angry, rather than just blast away. In other words, their anger becomes a strategic action. In stark contrast, the insecure will blast away and even act vengefully with significant hostility. Often cynical and distrusting, they tend to use dysfunctional anger in destructive ways.

I rarely attempt to deal immediately with a person's dysfunctional anger. That's not the time to problem solve. When the issue is important, I’ll come back at a later date and problem solve with the individual. In contrast, if the anger is essentially functional, it's usually calling for changes from staff. In that case you can sometmes listen to the anger and start questioning and problem-solving with the individual. Functional anger is usually a sign of high priority, passion and desire for change, much in contrast with dysfunctional anger.

Because of my early experiences as a church pastor and seminary professor--both highly constricting roles--I usually hid my anger--much to my chagrin. Today. I’d be much more upfront with my anger. For example, I remember a couple instances on a church board when I was up front with my anger about some potential decisions. Both episodes were viewed rather positively in people’s minds, one of them resulting in a thoughtful bit of group change. My anger--and passion--were evidently important and very clear.

As a father of three daughters, on a rare occasion I might make my point with functional anger, usually achieving my objective. I thought my daughters didn’t know what I was doing. Boy, was I in the dark! Before writing this, I talked to one of my daughters and she responded with hilarious laughter. They all knew what was going on. . . that I was elucidating a priority. . .and that they’d better pay attention and make a change. This same daughter responded that once, in a conversation with a girl friend who was having difficulty with her dad, she commiserated, “Yeah, my dad can be a real bastard too. But actually, he’s very loving and supportive 99% of the time. The anger is just for show!” She knew I was using functional anger!  I’ve done the same thing on a few occasions with a client—and it always paid off. But if you decide to try it, start out with a slightly raised voice—it takes practice.