4 ms·

> I was taught that anger isn't an emotion. Yes, this is a school of thought I've seen in a few communication circles. It's not entirely accurate, but it's a u

by BeetleB 2mo ago

> I was taught that anger isn't an emotion. Yes, this is a school of thought I've seen in a few communication circles. It's not entirely accurate, but it's a useful exercise. They teach that anger is really a derived emotion, and is a result of a fundamental emotion, coupled with a narrative in your mind. The fundamental emotion is the real one, and the narrative in your mind maybe inaccurate. As a result, when you're angry, examine that narrative and ask: "Is this the only narrative that fits the data points?" There have been occasions where I felt instant anger as a result of a stimulus, and there really wasn't a narrative behind it. But those are the exceptions. In well over 95% of the cases, it is a derived emotion. Related: A lot of people really seem hardwired to blame. When something goes wrong (at work, in their life, wherever), they seem to be incomplete if they can't find someone to blame. They often refuse to accept that "Accidents can happen." Separating the act of "solving a problem" from the act of "blaming someone" was something I learned early in my career. It's useful to know which people you work with are those who can't distinguish. Pro tip: Never work for a manager whose first question when something goes wrong is "Who owns this?" It's OK to get there eventually, but not the first impulse.

ChrisMarshallNY 2mo ago
> Never work for a manager whose first question when something goes wrong is "Who owns this?" It's OK to get there eventually, but not the first impulse. I worked for a company that this was never asked, because we already knew. Every task/bug/feature had an "owner," before any work was done on it. We had this insane JIRA ticket workflow that was designed to force someone to be in charge of every item. You couldn't just put something down, and walk away. It was a pain, but when problems happened, there was never a "blame game." We would just figure out if there was a root cause. If it was someone's mistake, they might be made responsible for fixing it, but if we felt they were in over their head, we'd pitch in, and help. Everyone was always responsible for rolling up their sleeves. People who pointed fingers, did not do well. People who broke stuff, seldom suffered, unless it was a habit, but people who fixed stuff (including stepping up, and taking the rap) would get kudos.
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  I'm fascinated to hear that this worked. I worked at one place where that was the goal: Everything had an owner. It was terrible (and from what I hear, still is). I'd have a job which required some expertise. John nearby had his job with his expertise (different from mine). John is overloaded[1], and can't own everything related to his expertise. So they take things off his plate and distribute it to other people - including people like me who have almost no understanding of what he does. Then when something goes wrong, people come to me, but I don't understand any of it. So I go to John and, generally, he fixes the problem. This is inefficient. People should have just gone to John. But that's not the worst of it. John can refuse to help or fix. He makes it clear he is not the owner. I am. Or he's on vacation. Or whatever. No one cares about the reason. I'm the owner, so I need to fix it. I got a demerit on the job because I didn't go to his cubicle multiple times a day, every day to demand he fix it (he was the one who broke it, BTW). Management has a lot of excuses to support this dysfunction: I should have harassed him. I should have harassed his manager. I should have decided to become a domain expert when it was assigned to me. I'm supposed to hustle with a "Can do" mentality. On and on. The other dynamic it led to was trying to pass it on to other people. When something broke, the reason wasn't always clear. The person assigned to own it didn't want it to be his problem, so he'd find some trivial detail that was off, and simply forward it to that other person to fix. That person would then write a lengthy (and often obvious) explanation why that trivial detail couldn't possibly have led to this breaking and pass it back. Only then would the original person dig deeper (well, unless he found some other trivial detail to bug someone with). It was exhausting, and the impression I got was that by making everything owned by someone, it led to a culture of no one wanting to own anything. If it's possible to really give every task appropriate ownership, I can understand. They definitely couldn't do it at that job. Ownership was just a word management used to sleep at night. Getting back to my original point, the first question should always be: "How can this problem be fixed?" When exploring that, you may end up with "John owns it and he's the only one with the expertise" - and that's fine. Diving straight into "Who owns this?" is often his way of saying two things: 1. I don't want to fix it. 2. I want someone to be punished for this. > We would just figure out if there was a root cause. If it was someone's mistake, they might be made responsible for fixing it, but if we felt they were in over their head, we'd pitch in, and help. Everyone was always responsible for rolling up their sleeves. This is good. As long as there was a mechanism to assign appropriate ownership. [1] There was always a lot more work than people available to do it.
InexSquirrel 2mo ago
But what's the fundamental emotion then? What is anger derived from?
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  It can be derived from a bunch of them, depending on the situation. If you call an Uber and it's 30 minutes late almost causing you to miss the flight, the fundamental emotions could be anxiety, fear, annoyance, distraught, dismayed, restless, nervous, etc. Anger arises from the narrative your brain tells itself to explain those emotions. Such as: The Uber engineers didn't model rush hour traffic in this area well! How are they paid so much more than me? Fundamental emotions don't require the existence of another person.
- hammock 2mo ago
  Typically fear or sadness (not making this up, this is how it’s taught in psychology)

by BeetleB 2mo ago

ChrisMarshallNY 2mo ago

> Never work for a manager whose first question when something goes wrong is "Who owns this?" It's OK to get there eventually, but not the first impulse. I worked for a company that this was never asked, because we already knew. Every task/bug/feature had an "owner," before any work was done on it. We had this insane JIRA ticket workflow that was designed to force someone to be in charge of every item. You couldn't just put something down, and walk away. It was a pain, but when problems happened, there was never a "blame game." We would just figure out if there was a root cause. If it was someone's mistake, they might be made responsible for fixing it, but if we felt they were in over their head, we'd pitch in, and help. Everyone was always responsible for rolling up their sleeves. People who pointed fingers, did not do well. People who broke stuff, seldom suffered, unless it was a habit, but people who fixed stuff (including stepping up, and taking the rap) would get kudos.

BeetleB 2mo ago
I'm fascinated to hear that this worked. I worked at one place where that was the goal: Everything had an owner. It was terrible (and from what I hear, still is). I'd have a job which required some expertise. John nearby had his job with his expertise (different from mine). John is overloaded[1], and can't own everything related to his expertise. So they take things off his plate and distribute it to other people - including people like me who have almost no understanding of what he does. Then when something goes wrong, people come to me, but I don't understand any of it. So I go to John and, generally, he fixes the problem. This is inefficient. People should have just gone to John. But that's not the worst of it. John can refuse to help or fix. He makes it clear he is not the owner. I am. Or he's on vacation. Or whatever. No one cares about the reason. I'm the owner, so I need to fix it. I got a demerit on the job because I didn't go to his cubicle multiple times a day, every day to demand he fix it (he was the one who broke it, BTW). Management has a lot of excuses to support this dysfunction: I should have harassed him. I should have harassed his manager. I should have decided to become a domain expert when it was assigned to me. I'm supposed to hustle with a "Can do" mentality. On and on. The other dynamic it led to was trying to pass it on to other people. When something broke, the reason wasn't always clear. The person assigned to own it didn't want it to be his problem, so he'd find some trivial detail that was off, and simply forward it to that other person to fix. That person would then write a lengthy (and often obvious) explanation why that trivial detail couldn't possibly have led to this breaking and pass it back. Only then would the original person dig deeper (well, unless he found some other trivial detail to bug someone with). It was exhausting, and the impression I got was that by making everything owned by someone, it led to a culture of no one wanting to own anything. If it's possible to really give every task appropriate ownership, I can understand. They definitely couldn't do it at that job. Ownership was just a word management used to sleep at night. Getting back to my original point, the first question should always be: "How can this problem be fixed?" When exploring that, you may end up with "John owns it and he's the only one with the expertise" - and that's fine. Diving straight into "Who owns this?" is often his way of saying two things: 1. I don't want to fix it. 2. I want someone to be punished for this. > We would just figure out if there was a root cause. If it was someone's mistake, they might be made responsible for fixing it, but if we felt they were in over their head, we'd pitch in, and help. Everyone was always responsible for rolling up their sleeves. This is good. As long as there was a mechanism to assign appropriate ownership. [1] There was always a lot more work than people available to do it.

InexSquirrel 2mo ago

But what's the fundamental emotion then? What is anger derived from?

BeetleB 2mo ago
It can be derived from a bunch of them, depending on the situation. If you call an Uber and it's 30 minutes late almost causing you to miss the flight, the fundamental emotions could be anxiety, fear, annoyance, distraught, dismayed, restless, nervous, etc. Anger arises from the narrative your brain tells itself to explain those emotions. Such as: The Uber engineers didn't model rush hour traffic in this area well! How are they paid so much more than me? Fundamental emotions don't require the existence of another person.
hammock 2mo ago
Typically fear or sadness (not making this up, this is how it’s taught in psychology)