3 ms·
Managing one's emotional state is a critical skill for anything -- making marriages work, raising kids successfully, closing an important deal, delivering a eul
by p4wnc6 11y ago
Managing one's emotional state is a critical skill for anything -- making marriages work, raising kids successfully, closing an important deal, delivering a eulogy for someone you care about, and doing your job.
But, like all critical skills, it will vary from person to person and everyone is at a different point along the path to mastering it -- some of us with inherent personality/biochemical/social/physical differences or challenging circumstances that make it harder to modulate emotional reactions.
If a person is good enough at lots of other areas, they can often compensate for a lack of skill in modulating emotional state. Not always and not in every circumstances, but yes, in lots of ways they can, just as those who are really good at managing emotional state, but who perhaps lack another skill, like technical competence, might be able to compensate for that particular lack of skill too.
In this sense, I am not sure what good it does to draw attention specifically to emotional state as a skill in question. I worry that doing so might create further cases where people who face challenges with mental health or well-being have that fact unfairly used against them.
I can only imagine if a bureaucracy began to codify "modulating emotional state" as a "skill" and made you evaluate how your peers handle emotions in a 360 review or something. It's particularly troubling that the post decries negative emotions, and uses charged language like "wallowing in negative emotions" to depict what is presumably someone who is "not managing" their emotional state well. This screams unfair negative stigma to those who happen to struggle with, say, depression, or have marginalized disorders like, say, misophonia.
We shouldn't forget that complaining about unsatisfactory circumstances is one of the best and healthiest things a human can do in order to get help they might need to have their circumstances changed. We have to be careful that this stuff is not codified into business double-speak for "shut up and stop whining about things you don't like."
This whole post seems like a very dangerous road to go down to me.
- discreteevent 11y agoThe basic principle of the article is good. We should try to keep calm and use our heads. But in any creative process I would expect to hear a few curses and maybe even see people in a bad mood for a few days. That's fine as long as people still get on with it and don't behave like an asshole to those next to them. Creativity is a struggle. If he sees people who say something negative about the client as "poisoning the design process" then I think he has gone from giving some good advice to a kind of intolerance that's just not very practical.
- dolguldur 11y agoAfter feeling like having wasted precious time reading the OP, I'm glad I read your comment!
- pjc50 11y agoI can only imagine if a bureaucracy began to codify "modulating emotional state" as a "skill" This tends to be run through a gendered filter and then labelled "professionalism".
- p4wnc6 11y agoWell, "professionalism" is pretty much the black-hole escape valve of HR. It has to do with your hair style, your political beliefs, your religious beliefs, how much (or how little) you drink alcohol, where you choose to live, whether or not you are married, whether or not you have children, how much maternity/paternity leave you request, what types of clothes you wear, how much (or how little) you make jokes, what type of car you drive, and on very rare occasion, how you conduct yourself and treat colleagues while working. Basically, any time the HR apparatus wants to disapprove of you, it will simply invent a reason to do so, and then turn around and say that the invented reason is a part of "professionalism" or "being a team player". In fact, in a Moral Mazes sense, this is precisely why there is an HR apparatus in the first place -- exactly to manufacture plausible and legally defensible excuses for defending arbitrary (and often illegal and irrational) whims of executives.