I was taught that anger isn't an emotion. It's a reaction -a defensive surge of adrenaline, binary thinking, and motivation to fight. It can feel empowering and energizing. We aren't just sitting here. We're gonna do something.

The emotion is fear. Anger is just a reaction to fear. Basically, if we are angry, we are also scared; whether or not we want to admit it.

It's a long topic, and one I know well (I agree with the above summary), but I really don't think that discussing it, would be particularly welcome, here. I know that it isn't often welcome, even with folks that ask to hear it.

I've spent the majority of my adult life, learning to curb and sideline anger. In my experience, my anger has always caused problems. It has never solved a problem.

Ever. Not even one single problem.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

It's just drained my energy, stunted my reasoning, and poisoned relationships. It has caused others to strike back at me, when they didn't need to (which, of course, caused me damage), it has caused problems, where none existed before, and magnified existing ones.

We can't help getting angry, but we sure can help staying angry. That "staying" part is the corrosive agent. Anger is meant to be a temporary burst of energy, to deal with a threat. After the threat has (or has not) been dealt with, anger is supposed to dissipate. It's not supposed to be an "at rest" state (unless you're Bruce Banner).

▲

BeetleB 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

tikhonj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> You couldn't just put something down, and walk away.

This seems like a pretty big problem. A lot of tasks should be put down. And, on the flip side, you absolutely need room for people to do things without needing to publicly justify themselves ahead of time.

I've been in places that try to approximate this sort of tracking, and I never felt like they were free of blame, I felt like blame was the default. There's no need to play the "blame game" if the whole system makes people feel blamed automatically!

That said, I've found a variant of this works: give people ownership of general areas, with well-defined but permeable boundaries. You only need to track the details at the interaction points, and only a subset of the work has to happen at those points. This also gives you a lot more room for overlap between people and teams; an interaction point naturally has at least two "owners" and, in a pinch, either side can come up with a (possibly sub-optimal) solution on their own. Or people can shuffle interaction points around—stop depending on one thing, move to some alternative—to work around problems.

▲

BeetleB an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It was a Japanese company. Personal Accountability and Responsibility are a big deal, over there. Also, the team is always more important than the individual. That's a concept that doesn't work particularly well, on this side of the Pacific, but it worked for them. There were many things about working there, that I think would drive folks here, nuts, but they consistently released some of the finest gear in the world. Software...not so much. I really tried to get them to change the way they approached software development, but never really had much success.

▲

Undulating-Appa 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

-> I was taught that anger isn't an emotion. It's a reaction

After spending the last year in and out or rehab, and intensive outpatient dealing primarily with alcohol addiction, I've been told by many different people that anger is the emotion, its unhealthy to just ignore it. That's one of many things (anxiety for me) that keeps people in active addiction. Your statement is close to my belief and experience, except that Anger IS an emotion and all emotions are neutral, neither good or bad. Its how you respond to the emotion that can become the problem, weather its violence, drugs or any other harmful activity. Processing any emotion in a healthy way and being able to understand the reasons you feeling the emotion is the gamechanger. Speaking only from my own experience.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Eh. I've been in Recovery for 45 years (46, next month). I was always told that fear is the emotion most prevalent in my defects, and that anger was only one of many destructive reactions to it, so most of my work, was addressing the fear. I was told that anger is the dubious luxury of the normal man. I spent the first ten years, in an almost constant state of anger. Giving it up, was almost as difficult as giving up other stuff, but it was definitely a watershed in my life. However, I think that's all I'll say on the topic. These types of discussions are always best done in small groups, not in public, on a tech forum. I sincerely wish you good luck!

▲

the_great_talke 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Serenity Now! (Seinfeld reference where the guru of George's father who specializes in anger suppression goes insane.)

▲

cindyllm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]