How can a manager control his temper?

Which one is more effective: talking or barking?

When it comes to controlling emotions (temper) it is always easier said than done. But it can be trained and it all starts with creating self-awareness about our emotions. Having such awareness specifically denotes the importance of having a high degree of social & emotional intelligence in the discipline of management (the managing of others, whether employees, business relations or random members of our social circles).

We all know the cliché that is not so much a cliché actually but closer to a fact:

you can’t control something you do not know well

&

you cannot manage others if you can’t even manage yourself.

I try to remind myself that emotions can always choose the rational path of calm words (smart & effective communication) instead of deeds and automatic reactions (impulsive communication). But our emotional reactions are naturally faster than our rational considerations. That’s a bio-physiological fact we can’t do much about, but can only tame gradually through training and lots of practice.

If you think about it, you can always TALK about your emotions; how angry, disappointed, misunderstood, tensed, worried or impatient you are about a certain employee’s attitude or performance, instead of BARKING OUT these emotions.

But the problem of emotions control often arises when:

1. We think that our true thought/position in a certain situation can only be fully communicated, understood & respected by others when it is accompanied by emotion.
2. We think that others will only take us seriously when they see our emotions (which can be true by the way depending on your audience and their level of social intelligence)
3. Talking is viewed as a sign of weakness (culturally or group-collectively) and barking as a form of strength (also, culturally or group-collectively).
4. We are not the talking type that releases regularly and timely but the type that bottles up impressions about others until they evolve into powerful untameable emotions that erupt at once like a volcano in the most poorly-timed & destructive manner!

Controlling emotions does not necessarily imply suppressing them, but rather channelling them to reach effective communication. That’s why a face-to-face setting is usually preferred in solving conflicts, with as less external factors as possible influencing the calm & effectiveness of communication.

Communication is best served when conducted in a rational manner based on words and voiced thoughts that describe our emotions clearly & constructively, instead of uncontrolled eruptions that describe our words and thoughts poorly & destructively.

Which one is better a discussion or an argument?

Let’s compare both and find out for ourselves.

A discussion is a communication style of which the outcome is not predefined, while having “mutual understanding” as a pre-determined final goal before entering into it. A discussion is supposed to lead to the best solution of a given problem, a clarification of a misunderstanding or the best valuation of an idea, to mention some random examples.

Such “understanding” is to be reached & accepted by all engaged parties at the end of a discussion, based on healthy communication, proper exchange of ideas, information or opinions and genuine agreement (as opposed to artificial one for the sake of muting “high volumes”). It’s a collective, non-selfish & constructive process by nature (even if no outcome is reached yet).

An argument, on the other hand, is characterised by the “will to win” clearly visible through the show of interruptive emotions. An argument is less effective than a discussion in most cases but can be necessary depending on the counterpart’s openness to having a calm discussion. Having an argument is mostly the result of us being unable to suppress whatever emotion that we have at a given moment of discussing a topic, whether anger, impatience, anxiety, disappointment or sadness etc.

Paradoxically enough, having an argument at such times can be a healthy release of pent-up negativity; one that needs to be out of the way, first, for a calm discussion to take place.

I find arguments to be generally ineffective & counter-productive than discussions because their goal is either:

1. Predefined: when we argue for the sake of arguing (releasing negative energy because we WANT to), OR
2. Non-defined at all, when we argue because that’s all we can do now (releasing negative energy because we CAN’T discuss calmly)

Therefore, enforcing an arguing style of communication is a counter-productive, selfish & unfair form of communication aimed at convincing the other party of one’s points of views, legitimizing the use of irrational communication (shouts, fictitious outrage, refusal of agreement, interruptions, unmeant disagreements, lack of self-reflection, manipulation of facts etc.).

An argument is at its best when it means “a reason given in proof or rebuttal”, only as part of a debate or a discussion and not as a way of communication.

Spoken Word: The danger of silence

The video speaks for itself; thanks “God” it’s not silent.

Clint Smith: The danger of silence

Leadership is not about titles and positions but about influencing others. Do you agree?

I disagree on this one.

If leadership is only measured by our random influence on the lives of others, then we may as well all be leaders in a general sense, since we always influence other lives to some degree, through our social being.

In my opinion, leadership in general, whether good or bad (to stay within the generic question wording) is mainly concerned with the power to persuade others to follow what you do, say or believe in. There were always good and bad leaders, who shared the “leader” label, and who led others through a combination of charisma, eloquence, identification, power, inspiration, love, hate, fear and/or deception.

The good ones lead others to goodness.

What is your song of the day?

Avicii – Hey Brother

Hey brother, there’s an endless road to re-discover.
Hey sister, know the water’s sweet but blood is thicker.
Oh, if the sky comes falling down for you,
There’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do.

Hey brother, do you still believe in one another?
Hey sister, do you still believe in love, I wonder?
Oh, if the sky comes falling down for you,
There’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do.

What if I’m far from home?
Oh, brother I will hear you call.
What if I lose it all?
Oh, sister I will help you out!
Oh, if the sky comes falling down for you,
There’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do.

Hey brother, there’s an endless road to re-discover.
Hey sister, do you still believe in love, I wonder?
Oh, if the sky comes falling down for you,
There’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do.

What if I’m far from home?
Oh, brother I will hear you call.
What if I lose it all?
Oh, sister I will help you out!
Oh, if the sky comes falling down for you,
There’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do.

 

Dedicated to RASH-HIM-MUT-MER.

What would be your added value to your team at work?

1. I will always try to roll up my sleeves & be far ahead to inspire and yet close enough to relate to any task my job or my team members require.
2. Contagious perfectionist behaviour that seeks perfection without having the false hope of achieving it; one that will change under-performance into adequate performance, and average performance into excellent one!
3. An untiring communicator, a realistic motivator and a considerate listening ear.
4. I fall seven times and stand-up eight, and I’m strong enough to lift others up, too.
5. A “go getter”, “yes, we can”, “there is solution for everything” mentality!
6. I think exactly the opposite of what is said in the image below.

 

Excellent communication is hearing “unsaid things”. Do you agree?

True, capturing “unsaid things” is the best complementation of verbal communication.

Sometimes “you say it best, when you say nothing at all”, like the words of the famous Notting Hill (1999) sound-track song, sung much more beautifully by Alison Krauss than BoyZone’s Ronan Keaton who performed the official sound-track.

(I will let you enjoy it first)

Some studies claim that non-verbal communication makes up 94% of all communication humans have with each other, while others claim that it’s just an exaggerated hoax, borrowed from a “showbizz” soap. Do your own research!

In any event, I believe that body language constitutes the bigger part of our communication. This is indicative of the importance of non-verbal language especially in informal contexts, where people tend to be more loose with their gestures, but certainly in formal context too (like in sales, negotiations or a job interview).

This means that abrupt or unexpected silence can be the same as verbally saying something. One can figure out what people are saying or intend to articulate but can’t, through their silence. And what they are saying can be captured through our eyes when in a face-to-face context or even through our ears. Say what?

Yes, when noticing that a weird unexpected silent gap is dropped over the phone or in a face to face context, contrary to the most common expectation, based on our common-sense or close familiarity with that person in question, the chances of being accurate in figuring out what is been told and not voiced, are big. These chances grow substantially when our sharp observation is backed-up by an intelligent “processing & interpretation system”.

This interpretation system includes our mastery of social skills as a result of having a high EQ (Emotional Quotient), the scientific indicator of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence, on its turn, is often interchangeably, but not necessarily mistakenly, confused with another important part of our “intelligent being” which is “social intelligence”. It denotes our extra-ordinary ability (compared to others) to identify, understand, relate to and act properly upon our own emotions and those of others in different situations, even when nothing is audibly said or explicitly shared.

---

 

Having put forward all of this, I also like the counter-input that denotes that non-verbal language, while being extremely accurate sometimes, is tricky by its complex nature, since it cannot be checked or controlled. Also, it is strongly culturally influenced. For example, the famous Indian head-shake to the right and left does not mean “No”; it actually is a sign of agreeing to something or liking something. It is a “Yes” in Indian, while everything about it should mean “No” in many other cultures. (although an accompanying smile may cause some corrective confusing)

Add to this the fact that the interpretation of non-verbal communication is mostly left to the judgement & analysis of the recipient and, here comes the best part, the scrutiny and refute of the sender: “I didn’t say that! How can you even catch something that I haven’t explicitly said?”. Does this sounds familiar?

Were Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy arguing about something in the right picture? Or were they insisting on the other person entering first as a positive social gesture?

In formal business related dealings, non-verbal language can be a tricky form of communication. It may come in handy to know how your Japanese, Saudi or Nigerian business counter-parts expect you to greet them or build a trustworthy relationship with them, but don’t improvise too much and stick to what you know about them and to what you can exchange comfortably within your shared communication-context, topic or language.

In legal dealings it is no wonder that the foundation of some of the most important pillars of our modern society, like Law & Justice, are functionally based on tangibly felt and presentable unambiguous proofs of deeds committed, words exchanged or idea’s plotted, and less on “hunch”, feelings or non-verbal communication, making it both rock strong and full of loopholes, at the same time.

You are HIRED, if you can answer this job-interview question!

This is a real question that was put in a job interview and the only person that got the right answer got the job.

 

Question:

You are driving along in your car in a wild stormy night; it is raining heavily when you pass by a bus stop. And you see three people waiting for a bus: an old lady, an old friend that once saved your life and the perfect partner you have been dreaming all your life.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride knowing very well that your car is a two seats car and that you can give a ride to only one person?

---

My answer:

My first automatic action will be slowing down the car, near them.

After exchanging greets with my friend, I will offer him a ride, adding to it “or do you think WE should help others out first & go and catch up later”? This will initiate a “consultation-session”, short & harmless.

Why so? Because it will provide me with INFORMATION to make a better decision or at least make a weighted decision.

1. I can offer anyone of them a lift. But who actually needs MY lift?! (no one yet)
2. Is it not possible that each one of them (or some) already called a dear one to pick them up at the bus stop during such an angry stormy night?
3. Who said the bus isn’t coming or that they don’t prefer to take it (be it late)?
4. My first action will be asking them whether they need a lift from me and/or whether they’re getting picked up soon by someone. (asking first or just doing is very culturally determined)
5. This will still be a well-meant offer wrapped-up in a reasonable & sober manner, since they all can see the small size of my car and see that I actually stopped.
6. They will engage in a spontaneous social interaction, either consulting each other, favouring one another or explaining one’s urgent need to be first. Or giving me the right (order) of choosing based on their attitude.
7. My offer has open validity & genuine attached to it. I’m also flexible; I can go and come back. They can help me decide who’s first, who’s next, who’s third OR who’s thankful but needs no lift!
8. They can also help me decide intuitively: who’s a friend worthy of a reunion, who’s an old truly needy person & who’s a truly potential dream partner based on attitude & not only looks or dreamy fantasies, based on their own calculation of what I’m supposed to do according to them!

Don’t judge a book by its cover, for the inside pages may be blank & waste your time, money & good intentions.

---

I believe (but I may be wrong) that this question aims to examine abilities & competences such as:

1. Research valuation & research skills
2. Identifying needs vs improvisation & imposition.
3. Soberness & rationality in judgement vs emotionality & bad or pretentious impulsiveness.
4. Pro-activity & backing good intentions by deeds & words.
5. Being direct & frank vs being complimentary & vague.
6. Conveying honesty, fragility & transparency.
7. Altruistic traits vs egoistic traits.
8. Communication skills.
9. Group management skills, discussion & leadership by consultation.
10. Situation analysis & hard-decision-making skills.

Off course, I realize that I won’t have enough time to come up with such a “perfect behaviour answer”. But I think I will take my time until someone stops me or get lost in logical thinking.

ps: actually the right answer is supposed to be much simpler. You can look it up in Google, I guess. Thanks for reading! 🙂

Who Has Impacted Your Leadership the Most?

My father,

with his tireless instillment of the importance of knowledge seeking, critical thinking, truth telling and caring for the weak, even when not around all the time.

 

 

Is It Okay to View Life With BEIGE-tinted Glasses, Instead of ROSE?

Don’t you hear this too often: “He views the world with rose-tinted glasses”. What is this all about?

Who said that rose should always be the choice? What if I like beige as my metaphoric colour of life, that brings about the same feelings as rose does to the rest of humanity? I don’t always try to view the world with rose-tinted glasses or follow the metaphoric hype blindly, because frankly “rose” is not exactly my favourite colour, when it comes to viewing life as it is.

Life is not rose-tinted, and it does not become rose-tinted either when putting on rose-tinted spectacles. Life is colour-blind, colourful, “colourish”, multicoloured, colour-rich and colourless. Life can be a grey turbulent stormy day or a colourless quiet nap in sunny garden interrupted only by silent merriments of a shy breeze.

How many colours did you count in this imaginary scene?

Rose is only part of it. Green, blue, yellow, red, grey, black or white colours contribute inextricably to making the mix the more natural one, a more whole one. Seeing the world via only rose-tinted glasses or only grey-tinted glasses manipulates the colour of trees, rivers, doves, sands, skies, lips and fire. It corrupts the natural “glow of emotions” and the spontaneous flow of thoughts. It also “dehumanizes” the inimitable beauty of a natural skin-colour. Try it!

Try to add rose to any “colour” you know of people, you know the skin-colour of people, while wearing your rose-tinted glasses. What image  would you really get now of that stunning sociable lady or that handsome funny man? I’d say an alien, an unearthly creature, to which my first spontaneous reaction would/should naturally be: estrangement and as a result of this, fear of strangers and strange.. things.

We are naturally made up to pick and observe all of these colours of life together or separate, for a reason, even when born colour-blind, I believe.

“Interruption”: People who are colour blind are believed to be generally less attentive to their appearance, by nature of the defect in their “life camera-lens”, with which they register the physical glow of things. They have little to great difficulty combining cloths of different or similar colours. As a result, they have difficulty being conventionally well-dressed or fashionable, even if they manage to be presentable. The interesting thing is that this is not a loss or a negative thing at all. You see, being less conditioned to their appearance makes them more attentive to the crucial, basic, non-superficial side of life with less care for what people think of them or view them (appearances). A dear person to me is like that, and it took me knowing this tiny piece of information to appreciate him more.

The later established relationships between colours & emotions are the result of psychology as a science (Colour Psychology). But like most social sciences, psychology is the explanation and writing down of what has always been done by humans. We behaved in a certain way, without knowing why we behaved in certain way and then came psychology to tell us that using theorization, experimentation and analysis.  And we have learned to appreciate all of these colours, because we were able to observe them and make them part of what we have perceived as “whole”:, throughout our life, no matter long or short.

Do not choose one colour and cloud the clarity of your sight voluntarily. Negativity is only one colour of life, with black or grey as property psychology colours attributed to it. Well, I like them both, too; black AND grey. I like to put on these grey glasses once in a while, because I want to and I need to. They allow me to appreciate the natural colours of things and people I already have, seek appreciation and embrace contentment, whenever I take them off.

Did you know that transparent glasses are always better for… a clear sight?

Eye-glasses are never rose, grey, black or brown per definition. Actually, glass is naturally transparent, colours were only added afterwards to it when it became possible in terms of making or producing. Also, remember that eye-glasses only have a different colour when the intent of wearing them is non-medical (not intended for improving sight) but aimed at “masking” or covering something else in its natural form (devoid of artificial colour), mostly under the pretence of being fashionable, thereby manipulating a certain clarity that we can’t deal with at some point, like a too shiny sunlight in an otherwise beautiful sunny day (or a too grim private situation amidst a happy family occasion).

Why do people wear black glasses at funerals? What are they hiding? Their tears? Why? Could it be, because it is “fashionable” and more likeable to be happy all the time? What if you truly are not happy? To whom would you pay “allegiance”; to you true emotions or to what people want them to be?

“Transparent” is my all times and all places favourite colour, for it is the colour of clarity, honesty, neutrality and tolerance. It tolerates the existence of all other colours in unequivocal peace and harmony.

Transparent is the true colour of invincible inner-happiness.