There’s a genuine distinction between anger intelligence and anger management. Some have a few, healthy anger management skills, but it seems to me that very few people have anger intelligence competencies. Indeed, I suspect most have never thought about anger intelligence. It is however, a historical study.
Anger is usually viewed as a disrupting, destructive emotion, especially in business — unless, of course, you’re a well-placed executive without those limitations. The religious typically view anger as bad stuff, something we should set aside and, to quote St. Paul, never go to sleep with. Paul, however, never kept his own rule. So like most generalities, there are exceptions. Indeed, there are times when anger is strategic, and also times when it’s simply not useful to set anger aside, much less forgive the target of your anger.
To be clear, studies have shown that anger evolved as a means to help us express feelings of being undervalued. Showing anger signals that if we aren’t treated fairly or if we don’t get treated fairly, it’s going to cost the other person(s) either harm or benefits. It’s that emphasis I want you to consider.
I’m not talking about the unlearned, irrational, lowbrow rants of the Donald Trumps and politicians of our political world. In this paper, I’m not referring to the anger of hostility — the hyperbolic, imbalanced, over-learned heat that only flares tempers. Nor to the anger that does not listen and is completely unwilling to make compromises. Furthermore, I’m certainly not referring to that corrosive emotion that can run off with both your mental and physical health. Strategic, productive anger may be initially emotional, even highly emotional, but also exceedingly deliberate and disciplined activities. It is a behavior that is often calculated, a calculation that flows out of the situation.
Induced Anger
Studies have found that people induced anger within themselves if they perceived personal benefit. It should be very clear that Trump and other politicians use anger precisely because they believe there is significant benefit for using it. Indeed, they are teaching large populations to act angrily. I seriously doubt most people were as angry originally as they have become as a result of their Trumpian and political training. Indeed, because most lack stage guidance in their activities, when they get some of what they want they keep adding to their activities and getting more of what they want. Until, that is, some of us just get tired of it. Nothing more damaging to an actor than an obviously bored audience.
By the time I was in junior high school, I began to recognize that my mother’s anger was at least partially staged for effect. She could use anger to get some of the attention she thought she deserved from my father and my brother. I don’t remember the exact language I used, but on several occasions, I suggested to my dad that she was suckering him with her anger. By the time I was 11th or 12th grade, I’d developed my acting skills to the point where I could manipulate them up and down, or turn them off. By that time, I think I’d learned never to turn them on because it didn’t pay—or I didn’t do a good enough job. I found rather sickly, that tears worked better with her. I never did that shit again after finishing college and marrying a wonderful woman. On the few occasions of interaction with my mother, I was profoundly rational—which drove her nuts. And for which I didn’t give a damn.
The research also emphasized, however, that the anger demonstrated must be authentic. Or, dare I say it must be believable and seem to be authentic. One study, for example, found that faking anger in a negotiation setting fails to achieve objectives. It can cause a partner to see you as untrustworthy and result in more demands upon you. I suspect however, that the “fakers” didn’t have their act down very well, so their plays failed. (Psychologists who act like they believe all this emotion stuff will be appalled by what I’ve written. I understand that they stand to lose money if it’s just staged rather than “authentic.”) After an open conversation on this with my best buddy, a practicing psychologist, he had some astute words in laughter. I remember him saying precisely, “Erwin, you’re going to drive me and my colleagues out of the emotion business. Stop it!”
One problem with all this is that there is no real means for assessing the ability of others to define anger as faked or authentic unless you’ve had courses and experience in drama. I learned a lot over the years at The Guthrie. Fab acting!! Furthermore, like Jeff Pfeffer, I’ve long understood that authenticity is misunderstood and overrated. Indeed, emotions, including anger, can be and often are subject to personal management. Successful leaders understand that using emotions strategically is essential for effective leadership, and they spend time developing those competencies.
Acting, but not acting out.
Emotional acting can be a significant means for managing work relations and for changing identity. Those who view that as problematic tend to hold a static definition of the person. Instead, we understand identity as flexible and manipulable, and that there is no “true self.” In other words, as Hazel Markus of Stanford tells us, there’s a whole cast of characters in our hearts and minds. The smart leader, on occasion, lets people see his emotions, inauthentic or otherwise.
Water-cooler conversations during or after a negotiation often reflect questions about whether or not a participant’s anger was authentic, but often the conversation concludes with the participants deciding that the anger was authentic, especially when the individual was perceived as powerful. Of course, some people are far better actors than others, making emotional assessments difficult.
Issue oriented
Research also reveals that anger works better when it’s directed at an issue, rather than at those arguing an issue. Inevitably, when focusing on the person, it’s motives that are front and center. Motives, however, are internal and incapable of accurate assessment. So it’s wise to focus on the tangible, measurable, quantitative facts of the matter, not on motives.
Significantly, anger can sometimes clarify boundaries, needs, and concerns, thus benefiting all. One of my rules is that you only get angry at people who are significant to you. We simply don’t waste energy on insignificant people. That’s why we get angry at family members, or the neighbor next door, but not the neighbor down the street. Even in those situations, focus on the issues, not the person. You’ll find that anger can become leverage for more effective negotiation, clarifying and resolving boundaries and issues. Anger can drive people to work out mutually satisfying resolutions.
On a few occasions I’ve asked a daughter “shall I act out on this, to make my point?” which inevitably brought laughter and some form of “no, I get it Dad.”
Not merely loss of control
Finally, anger tends to be associated with the loss of control. That’s not always true. The truth, instead, is that anger has clear applications and obeys rules like those listed above. It may be blunt and messy, but understanding its usefulness in business and life can result in better deals, galvanize people, and perhaps improve all our lives.
By the way, there is a such a thing as the “history of American anger.” There were a lot of changes in the uses and demonstrations of anger between 1650 and 2200. Some of the advice books from all of these generations are still library available.
I believe more and more that all anger is rule-oriented and originally stage learned. You learned how to talk and you learned how to emote. Some people talk far better than most, just as some people emote far better than most. Better upbringing. Some people do a poor job of talking, just as some people do a poor job of emoting. Poor upbringing. They just never learned the rules.