A client called me recently to work with one of his business unit presidents. The president had been with the company for some time and had made significant revenue for the company. My client had been aware of the business unit president’s occasional angry outbursts and had even talked with him about his behavior over the years. However, my client acknowledged that this president’s behavior had been justified, overlooked, and minimized by the fact that he had made so much money for the company. Recently, within a short time frame, the president had been involved in a series of disturbing incidents with other people in the company, and they were demanding that my client take action. In addition, for the first time in years, the president’s business was beginning to slow down. My client called me to help salvage the long, and otherwise successful, career of this employee.

After the initial introduction, I met with the client on-site to begin the process of understanding him and what triggered his angry responses. To my surprise, I found him to be surprisingly charming and non-defensive. In fact, he acknowledged that he periodically becomes rattled and could become both reactive and emotionally intense. My suspicions immediately surfaced. I have enough experience with being “played” to be cautious when there seems to be early compliance, especially about changing one’s behavior! I did some due diligence and found that the president had, in fact, been verbally responsive to feedback in the past but continued to be unable to maintain a level of civility in the midst of difficult discussions. I went into the assignment assuming that he had not been given the tools to change and that, with help, he might be able to make some changes.

When exploring further, the president seemed helpless to address the problem, saying that his anger “just overcomes” him. This feeling of helplessness is a common one with individuals dealing with unbridled emotions. The belief is that the emotions “take on a life of their own.” It is what I refer to as the emotional threshold. The emotional threshold is the point of no return when emotions become so intense that the individual feels unable to “rein them in.” The individual then says things he later wishes he had not said, in a way he wishes he had not said them. Education requires the individual to be able to recognize ahead of time that they are at immediate risk for crossing this emotional threshold and take action to prevent further damage.

There are two ways of working with executives who have excessive and extreme reactions to situations. In the first, a consultant tries to help the individual understand the roots of his behavior (i.e., psychotherapy) and help him or her change through insight. This is a process that can take years and still may not result in behavior change. In the business world, time is always critical and the odds that an employer will wait for the person to understand the origins of their behavior is unlikely.

We chose the second approach, which was to help the individual accept responsibility for his behavior and equip him with specific tools to help mitigate future damage. We began this systematic process of helping him become more able to manage both his emotions and his reactions to them.

The first step was to help the president begin to recognize that, prior to any angry outburst, there is a physical response to either the situation or what has been said. Recognizing the physical triggers to a situation—prior to reacting—gives warning that a loss of control is imminent. We looked at how different physiological sensations can indicate the feelings associated with them (see chart below). We were able to identify that, when he is starting to get angry, his face flushes, he gets a warm sensation, and his breathing increases (see chart below). He spent the next week simply noticing his physical reactions and not trying to change any behaviors yet.

 

Emotion	Body Location	Possible Sensation
Sadness	Throat, chest, belly	Lump, narrowing pressure, aching, empty
Anger	Back of neck, head, shoulders, arms, hands	Ropes of tension, lumps, throbbing temples, clenched jaw, drawn in tight, held back, heat
Fear	Belly, head, face, chest, throat	Butterflies, fluttering, clutching, dizziness, shortness of breath, tension around eyes and mouth, dry mouth

 

At the first recognition of a physical response, we initiated the second step. Once he was able to regularly recognize his emotional response to stress and frustration, we initiated the second step: At the first recognition of a physical response, he was instructed to take a “time out.”

We told him to take a deep breath and a short 30-second break before responding to the situation at hand. The process of breathing helps regulate the body and lowers emotions. This gave the president time to reconsider his initial response before allowing the strength of his emotions to carry him over the emotional threshold. This small variation in his responsiveness made all the difference in both the degree and velocity with which he responded.

The third step was to use this time out to as an opportunity for him to reflect and become more intentional about his responsiveness. He could even question the assumptions he was making that would have led him down a regretfully angry path. He was able to think briefly about what a desirable outcome would be, the reactions of others involved, and how he could achieve a positive conclusion for all. He could then formulate his response.

The final step focused on his response. We created a few simple ground rules about not publicly humiliating, criticizing, or judging others. In addition, we discussed focusing on solving the problem and not “winning” the battle. Last, he identified someone that would provide him feedback post-meeting about his behavior.

As in any process of changing behavior (think golf swing!), there were initially fits and starts in the president’s progress. He made a log of his difficult conversations and his reactions to them. By providing some specific ways to recognize his behavior, pay attention to his physiological triggers, take a time out, and become more intentional about his responses, he was on his way to communicating in a much more effective manner. Gradually his outbursts diminished significantly in both frequency and intensity. At last communication, his career was intact and, even though his business was declining, he was still at the helm and back in the good graces of my client.

Summary

Executives who are unable to manage their emotions are at risk for over-reacting in response to common problems. These executives do not effectively calibrate their responses to the situation at hand, and can both intimidate others and shut down valuable conversation through the emotion in their responses. They risk using their power inappropriately and losing credibility among their colleagues and subordinates. Why do they have such extreme reactions, and what can be done to change this behavior?

There are three primary reasons that executives continue a pattern of getting what they want through the strength of their emotions.

1. Bullying: Bullies have been able to intimidate people in the past, and the success of these outcomes has reinforced this behavior. As a result, they come to believe that the ends justify the means.
2. Fear: Fearful executives are basically insecure, and their fear of losing control impels them to try to get back in control by covering their fear with anger. NOTE: This is the most common reason.
3. Interpersonal Intelligence: Executives in this category have either never been confronted about their behavior or, if they have, they do not have the skills to change it. These people often do not have a high level of emotional intelligence.

[There is a fourth category, that of a narcissistic personality. However, this type of person is unlikely to change their behavior, even under pressure.]

When executives have difficulty managing their emotions, it can be helpful to recommend the following process:

1. Help them identify their physical response to stress prior to crossing the emotional threshold.
2. Have them take a 30-second “time out” and breathe deeply.
3. Use the time out to reflect and become more intentional and less reactive in responding.
4. Stick to some simple ground rules, such as having the executive respond when under less emotional duress.
5. Find a trusted adviser who is able to provide the executive feedback on his or her behavior in the situation, in order to facilitate improved responses to future occurrences.

By providing these tools to executives who regularly experience overly emotional reactions, you create the possibility of behavior change and more effective responses in the future.

There has been a great deal of interest in well-respected NBC newscaster Brian Williams’ revelation that he “misspoke” about an incident 15 years earlier, when he was covering the war in Iraq. The details of the incident are not as important as the fact that Williams had told his viewers, over the years and in different settings, that the helicopter in which he was riding came under fire when, actually, it had not.

Because Williams was such a celebrity, with more than 9,000,000 viewers nightly, this story attracted much more interest than similar news involving lesser public figures. Now, Williams has been suspended from NBC while they sort out what actually happened. Some believe that he also exaggerated what he saw in New Orleans while he was reporting on Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. By the way, he was one of the only national reporters to be there.

This is neither an attempt to further vilify or to be an apologist for Williams. There has clearly been a failure of leadership in Williams’ reporting. However, his gross exaggeration is neither an isolated event in the history of celebrities, nor is it uncommon. In our culture of seeking bigger, better and more, there seems to be a general propensity to be dissatisfied with what we have, where we are in life and with ourselves, in general. The use of exaggeration to buoy our personal stock happens regularly as we try to “one-up” our colleagues, friends and, especially, our enemies.

Exaggeration is also common in the world of business, with companies whose CEOs have allowed the overstating of profits or minimizing and rationalizing shortfalls in order to benefit their company’s stock price. A recent example of this includes the SEC fining Office Depot $1 million for overstating earnings in 2010. Other examples of companies guilty of financial irregularities include WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Enron and Adelphia. These financial irregularities were particularly true before the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation that gave the notion of a CEO in pinstripes a different meaning! The root problem in all of these situations involves similar attempts to pretend to be something more than we are.

As David Brooks noted in an op-ed piece regarding the Brian Williams’ faux pas, “…no matter how high you go in life and no matter how many accolades you win, it’s never enough. The desire for even more admiration races ahead. Career success never really satisfies. Public love always leaves you hungry. Even very famous people can do self-destructive things in an attempt to seem just a little cooler” (New York Times, Feb. 10). After the Williams revelation, the Huffington Post cited NBC as promoting a culture where newsroom reporters became more celebrities than they were journalists such as Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite.

Williams was subject to a most basic of human deceits, the misplacing of personal value. When we value ourselves on the basis of our accomplishments and not on the basis of our intrinsic value, we are on a slippery slope indeed! At the root of this is what noted theologian John Claypool called “casting the sideways glance.” There is always someone more—and less—successful, wealthier (except, I guess Bill Gates), smarter, more attractive, more charismatic, who has a nicer house or car or more accomplished offspring. In other words, this “casting the sideways glance” always leads to misery and an unending cycle of despair. I am getting depressed just writing this!

To confuse what we have, or have accomplished, with who we are is a misplaced, but common—unfortunately, accepted and, even, rewarded—belief. The feeling of being perpetually dissatisfied with what we have or who we are begins early. Go to any youth sports event and watch parents cheering for their children. You do not see parents shouting out “have fun,” “enjoy your time on the field,” “be nice to the players on the other team.” When children score, parents admonish them to do it again. If one score is good, then two is twice as good and so on. When the child does not score, get a hit or block a shot, the parents admonish these “underachieving” children to practice more or try harder so that then can do better next time.

In a similar manner, our preoccupation of pushing children to get good grades to get into the best schools becomes an obsession. Children always take their cues from their parents, so getting better grades becomes an outcome in itself rather than being rooted in enjoying learning. The joy of learning becomes sabotaged by the pursuit of a perfect report card. This skewed pursuit of grades is further reinforced when children overhear their parents brag to other parents about their accomplishments (or lament when their grades have lagged).

To be sure, most parents are well-intentioned. They want what is best for their children. They want to give them every advantage in life so they can be successful and happy. However, these well-intentioned parents are operating on a fundamentally flawed assumption about happiness and contentment: the assumption that, if one of something is good, more of the same thing can only be better. Then if more is better, you will be happier. This false premise creates insecurity about what we have and who we are, adding to the fallacy that “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.” This desire to have more is deeply rooted and very difficult to overcome once its hooks have taken hold. Such desire is pursued in the name of happiness and, as Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert has observed, our mind works in such a way that each time we experience success, we simply move the goalposts. If happiness is on the other side of success, we can never get there! (Stumbling onto Happiness, 2006). Wasn’t this the dilemma that Brian Williams faced?

There is very clear research on happiness by a number of sources. Multi-year studies carried out with a variety of populations, including entire countries, have determined that there is only a slight relationship between financial success and happiness. This relationship is linear, up to the point where people are able to cover basic needs with their level of income. Below this level, there is a lower degree of happiness as people struggle to have basic needs met. However, once this level is met there is not an appreciable increase in happiness for a commensurate increase in financial accumulation. This research has been repeated time and again with the same results. The same is true for success in getting a new position, new car or a beautiful home. The enjoyment of the success is short-lived and, once the thrill of the new success or acquisition has abated, people return to their previous levels of happiness, rather than a higher level of happiness.

If it is not financial success that makes for happiness, it must be living in great circumstances, or having the position and status that Williams achieved—right? According to this line of thinking, those that have lost significant positions, influence, freedom and even significant physical capabilities should see life as less happy than those who have not lost such things. However, Dan Gilbert has provided many anecdotal accounts of individuals who have lost their jobs, their status, all of their lottery winnings, been to prison and lost opportunities to be rich or famous or had significant physical losses. Innumerable such people claim that their misfortune were blessings in disguise. These individuals believed that their lives were better because of their significant losses. These examples fly in the face of what we, as a society, believe about the link between success and happiness. Contrary to what most people believe, psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky has estimated that only 10% of a person’s happiness is derived from external circumstances. The other 90% is determined by their internal world or the way their mind processes the world (The How of Happiness, 2007). To quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” If we want to be happy, we must reverse the formula for happiness and success.

So what is a person to do? What does account for happiness, if not financial success, comfortable circumstances, elevated position or status? A new field of Positive Psychology has emerged in the past 20 years that has addressed this very issue. In the research conducted by psychologist Martin Seligman and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania, they have found three unique and intuitive areas that contribute to happiness.

Their first conclusion was that people who experience happiness are those that want what they have, rather than having they want. People who are content with what they have and are not seeking more, better or different have been found to have a level of happiness that is significantly greater than the population as a whole.

The second conclusion from this research is that happiness and deep satisfaction are found when you extend yourself on behalf of another, through either acts of service or generosity. In several clever research studies looking at the relationship between getting and giving, the results are unequivocal that those people who share what they have with others experience a level of personal satisfaction that is greater than those that do not. Giving fundamentally changes how people view themselves and their positive connectedness to others provides great contentment.

The final conclusion had to do with maintaining an attitude of gratitude. People with the ability to regularly reflect on those things, or experiences, for which they are grateful are happier than those who do not take the time to appreciate what they have. Whether it is family, friends or flowers, the ability to appreciate the benefits of everyday life seems to be a key to having contentment and happiness. When looking at ratings of general happiness in various countries, the United States is far down that list, and countries such as Mexico rise to the top!

This takes us back to Brian Williams and his false statement. In a society and culture that mistakenly believes that achievement, acquisitions, power and status bring ultimate happiness, we are all at risk for exaggeration and “puffing-up” our accomplishments to get the accolades of our friends, family and, even, competition. When we look in the mirror to see our own tendency to exaggerate or lie, we can be less critical of others’ tendency to do the same. Being our best selves resides in accepting who we are honestly and facing life with authenticity. Adding money, status and power will not move the needle in our quest for happiness. Wow!

Is the Whole Really Greater Than the Sum of the Parts?

When solving problems, one challenge facing executives frequently is their belief that “I can do it better on my own.” A sense of urgency (or impatience) often drives executives to under-utilize those around them when needing to make decisions that impact the business. In addition, it is common for those in management positions to show reluctance to delegate work. This not only keeps their workloads excessively full, but it also prevents their direct reports from being able to develop their own capabilities.

Can one person solve problems more effectively than a group? A recent University of Pennsylvania study of 743 adults (cited in the March 2015 issue of Monitor on Psychology) sheds light on this issue. The researchers wanted to understand whether individuals or teams were more effective at predicting 199 world events of interest to the US intelligence community. Participants were assigned to work either on their own or in small teams. The findings showed that the teams were approximately 10% more accurate in their predictions than were individuals working alone.

You may wonder if 10% is a big enough difference to gather a team together, as opposed to an individual solving a problem alone. Well, the answer is not always, but sometimes. In fact, when solving routine problems that are incremental in nature and have little or no impact on the business, it is probably just as efficient to “do it yourself.” There is very little value added by assembling a team for such lower-level simple problems. Gathering a team for such problems may waste the time of team members and take too long to get out routine information.

However, when problems are unique and novel, complex, cognitively challenging and have a larger impact on the business, the research is clear—gather a team to help you solve it! There is nothing heroic about doing it yourself when, in fact, a team solution could be more effective, accurate and impactful. Keep these three guidelines in mind when deciding whether or not to assemble a team:

1. Why am I solving this problem alone? Is it the most effective and efficient approach, or is it because of my impatience or the attachment of my ego to the outcome?
2. Is the problem familiar, routine, simple and incremental, or is it unfamiliar, complicated, cognitively complex and one that may have great impact on the business?
3. Is the problem one that could be a development opportunity for individuals on my team?

The answers to these questions will help you determine if that extra 10%, or the opportunity to help others develop, justifies involving others in the problem-solving process. Remember, be intentional about your leadership!