Focus on the Source

Whenever You Diagnose Anger as an issue in your workplace, you must be ready to take action. This is true whether anger is an issue for you, another individual, your team, or your organization. The problem is, when we deal with anger, we tend to focus on the feelings of anger and their outward expressions. That's because they make us feel uncomfortable. Our goal thus becomes to "stop the yelling" and get people to "calm down." But, as necessary as that goal might be in some situations, it doesn't resolve the anger—it's like trying to put out a fire by chasing the smoke. Anger is an effect; for every instance of it, there is at least one cause.

An effective anger-management strategy goes far beyond the firefighting that temporarily maintains civility. The true key to resolving anger and tapping its benefits is to focus on the source. By identifying and addressing the underlying causes of anger, you can use the data provided by the anger to continually improve relationships as well as systems, practices, and policies.

The Causes of Anger in the Workplace
Each episode of anger has a unique source—a particular combination of causes. What are those causes in the workplace? In academic and journalistic studies of anger, researchers often ask people what makes them angry at work. Here is a list of their typical responses:

The way my boss/supervisor treats me

Stupid company policies

Coworkers who don't do their fair share

Not enough control over assignments

Not enough pay

Not enough benefits

Tight deadlines

Too much work

Coworkers making careless mistakes

Dealing with rude customers

Lack of cooperation

Stupidity and ignorance

How the company treats coworkers

How the company treats me

While people may differ in the specifics of what makes them angry, the causes usually have one common denominator: interpersonal dynamics—relationships between and among people. Every person has a basic need to value him- or herself and to feel valued by others. Yet when people's self-esteem is threatened, they're reluctant to admit it, even to themselves.

Some leading psychologists argue that anger is driven by primary emotions that attack self-esteem; these include feelings of betrayal, disapproval, deprivation, exploitation, frustration, humiliation, manipulation, restriction, and threat. Such emotions can be traced to any of a wide range of causes, from broad contextual circumstances to highly personal impulses. We may categorize the causes into five troublesome areas:

Anger at the system

Perceived inequity

Blocked goals

Divergent values

Unequal power relations

1. Anger at the System
Today many factors beyond our control create a broad context more likely to produce anger. In our highly interdependent and interconnected global economy, events halfway around the world can come knocking on our door and make us feel threatened and insecure.

Downsizing, increased workloads, and uncertainty about the fate of markets and organizations cause worry and anger—stress all around. People are spending more time at work—where they are expected to work harder, faster, smarter, and better—and working closely with one another in small groups and teams, thus creating more settings for emotions to be exhibited and shared. Performance standards have risen, but job security is a thing of the past. The increase of dual-career families has caused added pressure; couples often have to deal with frazzling commutes and nightmarish child-care logistics, and bring their increased anxiety to work.

In too many organizations, management accepts incivility, disrespect, and over-the-top anger. Employees are expected to take abuse as a hurdle to organizational success. Meanwhile, norms of civility and politeness in society as a whole continue to erode. Television offers a vision of immediate gratification, in which problems are easily solved by the show's end. Employees nurtured on these messages are not ready for the frustration of real life, where nothing may be solved by the day's end—or even the week's end.

Many of us work in organizations that are so large, so bureaucratized, and so departmentalized, we find it difficult to identify the cause of our anger. This may deepen our anger because it makes us feel out of control. Anger, by its very nature, is a feeling directed at a proximate cause—we want to aim anger at something or someone in particular. When large organizational systems with complex rules and procedures obscure our "target," we may grow angry at the system itself.

Systemic problems are by nature difficult to fix. But anger at the system is a signal that everything is not okay, at least not for everybody. It is important to be aware of this context when looking for more acute causal factors.

2. Perceived Inequity
As individuals, we have a strong tendency to compare ourselves to others. If we find that by some measure we are doing better than they are (perhaps we make more money or have a better job), we usually feel good; if we find that we are not doing as well, we usually feel bad. But this kind of personal difference is not the same thing as inequity. Inequity is a lack of fairness and justice. When we become aware of differences that seem unfair or unjust—especially when they have to do with issues we find important—we can experience strong feelings of resentment and anger.

In the workplace, we tend to look at what other people get (monetary reward, praise, and promotion) in relation to what they contribute (how hard they work, how smart they are). We also tend to work out in our heads what we get in relation to what we give. If it looks like another person is getting a better "deal" based on these equations, then we tend to get angry.

It is critical for managers to recognize employees' feelings of inequity. One of the most common reasons for employee violence and theft is not personal gain, but the desire to regain a sense of justice and fair play. For instance, after company mergers and acquisitions, employee theft tends to increase. Why? Because people feel that their job security is threatened. They're stressed about the organizational change and fearful about how they'll fit into the new regime. They feel they're likely to get lost in the shuffle and to suffer for reasons over which they have no control or even influence. In short, they engage in such behavior because they want to "balance the situation."

People who seek to "avenge" perceived wrongs done to them by the organization see themselves as having a moral cause; that's what makes the depth of anger (and the negative behaviors it can cause) seem so extreme. The cause may actually be a long-term set of perceived inequities and injustices that a person groups together.

When perceived inequity is driving anger, the first question we must ask is whether there is true inequity that must be resolved. Sometimes the perception of inequity stems from a lack of information. One might think: "Mary gets Thursdays off, and I don't. That's not fair." Just adding a piece of information can change the perception: "Mary works on Saturdays, and you don't. So she gets Thursdays off to make up for it." This is one reason why some transparency is preferable to secrecy in employer-employee dealings. Every deal is different and negotiated on its own terms with its own rationale. Such terms are less likely to be perceived as unfair if the rationale for the deal is transparent and expectations are clear.

3. Blocked Goals
All purposeful action involves the pursuit of goals. Our most basic human goals have to do with survival: protecting ourselves and our territory. But goals range in scope from great to small, whether the goal is mastering a technical skill or walking from your kitchen table to the living-room couch. We go about living by accomplishing one goal after another, from the most basic to the most extravagant. That's why most people become extremely frustrated when the pursuit of their goals is blocked in some way. The most common source of blocked goals is another person or group in pursuit of different goals.

In the workplace, goal-setting is at its most formal and the accomplishment of goals is explicitly and singularly valued. When two or more individuals or groups work together but have different goals, sometimes those goals come into conflict. In some cases, there is a clash in overall objectives, though usually the overall objectives are the same for everyone—profit. Problems more typically develop from a difference in shorter-term imperatives. For example, a sales group promises more than a service group can deliver, meaning that customers are always making inordinate demands, causing overwork and stress; the service group disappoints customers and interferes with subsequent sales efforts.

Similar goal clashes also may occur between and among individuals. Perhaps a manager's goal is to increase productivity, but his subordinate's goal is to slow down and enjoy the work. Or maybe a team member's goal is to get all the work done quickly and go home early, while her teammate's goal is to take a long time to complete a project so the team can collect overtime pay.

Of course, it is not the case that differing goals must always clash. Communication about alternative methods or even alternative goals can lead to healthy coexistence and even synergy. This requires trust and a likelihood of benefit to both parties.

When differing goals are mutually exclusive, decisions must be made. Which goal is more important? What adjustments can be made to the goals that are secondary to the more important goal?

Keep in mind that sometimes goals are blocked by circumstances that have nothing to do with competing goals. Even a factor as neutral as the weather can present an obstacle. The blockage is no less frustrating, though, and causes no less anger. By thinking creatively about what is causing the goal blockage, you may be able to circumvent the angry response. By removing the barriers—if doing so is realistic and appropriate—you can often turn a potentially negative situation into a positive one. If you cannot remove the barriers, then you must be prepared to deal with the frustration and anger that the blocked goals are likely to cause.

4. DivergentValues
When others behave in ways that we find abhorrent, we usually become angry—such behavior seems an affront to our values. In general, people vary in what they regard as abhorrent. But in the workplace, most people value competence, hard work, and integrity, and so are likely to get angry when they perceive a disregard or violation of these values.

Incompetence or laziness in a coworker, subordinate, or superior offends our sense of efficiency and hinders work-group productivity. It also may have long-term effects with respect to damaged client relationships or high monetary cost. Behavior that is considered morally reprehensible—such as stealing, cheating, taking advantage of others, and harassing people—is particularly noxious because it may involve direct damage to others.

It is important to understand that this type of anger is based on blame and the perception of intent. The angry person blames the offender for a misdeed of some type because he or she thinks the offender intended to cause harm. Managers must be prepared to consider intent without playing judge and jury.

No matter how infuriating incompetence may be, nobody intends to be incompetent. When a person acts incompetent in order to evade responsibility, the problem is a combination of laziness and dishonesty. Incompetence per se results from failures in selection, training, and/or supervision; thus when we are faced with true incompetence, the appropriate target of anger is management, not the incompetent worker.

In the case of laziness and failure of integrity, the appropriate target of anger is equally clear. The reaction should be swift and the offender evaluated. Does the offender understand that he or she has engaged in behavior that is unacceptable in the workplace? Does this person understand that the behavior will not be tolerated? Will he or she be given another chance?

In terms of assigning blame, we also need to remember an important finding from psychological research: that people have a tendency to blame people rather than circumstances when a problem crops up. For example, if a team is about to give a major presentation and a member has lost data vital to that presentation, most people will blame the member, at least initially, rather than factors beyond the member's control. Their first thought is that the member is incompetent, lazy, or dishonest, not that something like a computer glitch or a virus is the actual culprit. Why do people do this? Because it's easier to be angry at a person than at a situation.

Considering this natural tendency to look for blameworthy intent, we must be careful to check the facts when we believe a person is at fault or intended negative consequences. Good people make unintentional mistakes, and good people are the victims of factors beyond their control.

5. Unequal Power Relations
Organizations are structured on hierarchical relationships, and such relationships, by their very nature, generate fear and anger—the less powerful fearing the more powerful, with anger flowing in both directions. Typically, the less powerful figure is angry that the more powerful figure holds the key to his or her fear. And the more powerful figure is angered whenever that power is questioned or threatened because it confers a feeling of control and security in the relationship.

Anger may flow both ways, but it is more apt to be expressed in the downward flow. For example, according to one study, in situations where employees were angry with their bosses, only 45 percent expressed their feelings immediately, during the anger-eliciting event; however, 58 percent expressed their anger immediately toward coworkers, and 71 percent when anger was directed at subordinates.

Why does anger's expression tend to flow downward in organizations? First, those with hierarchical power feel the need to display and test their power periodically. Second, they become accustomed to the fruits of their power and insensitive to its impact on subordinates.

For subordinates, of course, that power and its impact are considerable. Just think. The more powerful make demands on their subordinates' time, impose goals and deadlines, evaluate competence and performance, and determine people's chances of promotion and success. Unfortunately, too often they also treat subordinates with disrespect, freely castigating them or otherwise lowering their self-esteem.

In any relationship, disrespect—treating others in a way that denies their fundamental worth—is likely to cause anger. When directed at someone who already feels powerless or dependent, it creates potent feelings of anger and a sense of unfairness. That's why studies show that people who are angry with their bosses link the offense to unfairness—an issue not as significant when anger is directed at coworkers or subordinates.

Because those in authority represent the "system" and have far-ranging responsibilities—from making decisions about burdens and rewards to enforcing standards of performance and conduct—they are not only the most likely to express anger in the workplace, but also the most likely to provoke anger in subordinates.