It was a simple experiment. Each delegate took their heart rates at the start of the ‘Inspirational Presentations’ workshop and then 30 seconds before they were asked to actually do their presentation. They were also asked to describe how they were feeling.  Everyone’s heart rate went up just before presenting by about 15-20%.  Every delegate bar Norman, the finance director, recognised that they were emotional before presenting. Norman thought that there would be no change in his heart rate. In fact, he was so surprised by the fact that it had gone up by 18% that he insisted on taking it again. This time, it had gone up to 21%, but still claimed he could not feel any emotion. Being someone who likes numbers, he trusted the heart rate change as an indicator that something was going on in his body as a result of having to present. However, he was not used to trying to recognise emotions, let alone describe them. When I played back a video of his presentation he acknowledged that at the beginning of his session his voice was at a higher pitch than normal. The video also highlighted things that he would not normally do – i.e. scratching various parts of his face and neck as he spoke and the clearing of his throat. The workshop helped Norman think about his emotions and how they were impacting on himself, his successes at work and other people.

Understanding the impact of emotion
The impact of emotion, competitiveness and conflict on team sports performance is well documented.  Everyone in the sports world now understands the importance of emotion even in what is an essentially physical arena where the use of visualisations are very powerful techniques for ensuring focus. Most sports enthusiasts have a view on the emotional state of their teams during the matches, although they may not realise that they are describing emotions.  Expressions like ‘he’s not on form’, ‘they can’t get it together’, ‘she’s not with it’ or ‘he’s losing it’ – all reflect a clear interrelationship between the emotional state and physical performance. So now having a sport’s psychologist on site has become the norm to help sports professionals manage their emotions to achieve optimum performance. Just as the role of emotions is accepted in the sports arena, it is becoming increasingly acceptable for organizations to want to understand and optimise the impact of emotions at work.

In fact, 2000 years ago, the Roman author and politician Cicero wrote: “Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute.”  Cicero was clearly aware that emotions impacted on all aspects of our lives. Yet, throughout the history of management thinking over the last century, emotions were generally ignored, even dismissed. The 19th century sociologist Max Weber focused on Rational Bureaucracy. This was purely a rational approach to work to ensure that decisions and actions were free from emotional sway. He perceived emotion as dysfunctional and there was no place to identify or indeed manage it. By the 1970s greater research was taking place on the brain and psychologists were looking much more at the predictors of success at work.

Daniel Goleman’s 1990s book Emotional Intelligence provided scientific explanations for why people behave as they do in a way that many non-scientists could easily understand. His book, which was essentially about knowing your feelings and how they impact on other people, was a catalyst for many organizations to jump on the bandwagon to develop the emotional intelligence of their managers. However, they were less successful at teaching people to be more aware of their emotions and the impact on other people.  The lack of success boiled down to the fact that emotions aren’t logical and therefore can’t be taught.

The development of emotions requires experience and reflection that triggers a genuine commitment to do things differently. For that reason, I find that when working with clients on developing emotional awareness, I limit the time I spend on the theoretical elements. Much of the intervention is focused around interpreting doing things differently rather than theorising about how things could be different.

Emotions at work: a case study
How do ER Consultants create that experience and reflection? Here’s a modified case study of a real life scenario that took place in one client organization that we use during our interventions.

A number of directors were briefed on a forthcoming IT change, which would have an impact on about 20% of the workforce with the possibility of relocation. The staff had suspected that a change of this nature was approaching and rumours were rife. Here’s a look at how two of the directors briefed their teams and how they managed their emotional response:

Senior Manager 1: a 5 minute discussion
“I only had fi ve minutes with them as I had to rush off. To be honest I wanted to get it out of the way ASAP so I just called them in. I stood up and presented the facts to my eight direct reports. I told them that a new IT system would be introduced in 18 months, which would have an impact on the way they work.

They would be retrained. They kept asking about relocation and I told them that I did not know anything because nothing has been decided. I told them to brief their staff in the next 48 hours before the press were informed. were informed.

They were really unproductive for the rest of the day. I don’t know what they told their staff but absenteeism went up by 6% the following week. It’s not like there is much you can do in that situation – you have to be honest.”

Senior Manager 2: a 15 minute discussion
“I figured that my team would be anxious about this and in particular what they could tell their teams. So I decided to move an appointment I had lined up after this meeting back by half an hour in case any of them wanted to raise concerns on a one-to-one basis. It took me about 20 minutes to work out what to say, but it was an important investment of my time. I gave them the information I had in a way that made the most sense to them. I told them that, in reality the IT changes are unlikely to affect more than 20% of the staff and having checked with the IT director let them know exactly who may be affected.  That way I wouldn’t have 80% of my staff worrying unnecessarily. I also explained that the change would be supported by comprehensive IT training.  The relocation aspect was more difficult. But given that the lease did not expire for another six years, I explained that the decision may not be made for quite a while. I tried to manage their expectations and help them to recognise that our board could not make a quick decision on this one. I also pointed out some of the rumours that I had picked up and refuted them. I explained why they were completely inaccurate to minimise concerns they might pick up from the press. I asked my managers to do the same with their team over the next 48 hours and flag with me any reactions, concerns they or their teams raised. Only two people came back to me with concerns and those were more around reassurance rather than further information.”

Most people will quickly work out the difference in approaches and impacts between the two directors.  Essentially they did the same things, however, the way they did it was completely different. The impact of what they did was massively different. This type of case study is an oversimplified example of how individuals can approach a situation very differently.  A discussion on the case study brings out all kinds of thoughts and emotions – especially when you do not show them how the second director handled the situation.

Interestingly, in the absence of seeing what the second manager had done, a number of delegates argued that the first director did a reasonable job given the circumstances. In some cases they were quite defensive at the suggestion that he did not manage the situation well. They were the ones who could not think of better ways of managing the situation. A delegate with over 20 years’ experience (who had struggled with the case study) commented that he had never stopped and thought about how he could address a situation like that any differently than the first manager had. The discussion about how the individuals may be feeling, the impact of different messages and the different outcome was completely new to him. He began questioning how he had behaved in various tense situations in past weeks and how others may have interpreted and felt like after their ‘run-ins with him’.

Of course, reading the case study is one thing, feeling it is another. That’s why we bring case studies to life in our workshops. This is achieved through a range of techniques and in some cases using professional actors. When a professional actor presents that information in two contrasting ways, individuals who find it difficult to think about their emotions feel the difference. It is often the first step in understanding the impact of different types of behaviours in what is essentially a difficult situation.

Emotions do matter
It is now 2007 and organisational change interventions continue to be solely process driven. Workplace change will always generally be predominantly process driven, however, the recognition and planning to ensure that the human factors move the process forward rather than backwards and sideways is still missing in many organisations. In our experience, organisations that address the ‘people issues’ and the impact of their emotions first-time round, save themselves a tremendous amount of time, effort and, of course, money.

For more information, contact:

paolo.moscuzza@erconsultants.co.uk

© er consultants Topics Issue 2, 2007