I went to a program on campus about "working with angry students (or others)" today. (I kept referring to it as "dealing with," which probably isn't the most positive way of phrasing it, but I do kind of think of it as "dealing with")
It was fairly interesting. I already do a lot oft of the things they talked about (not that I've had anyone super-angry in my office; I am more likely to get the criers, but some of the techniques probably work with people like that too).
One thing that struck me: the reasons people show anger. Not getting their needs met, yes, I understand that. Frustration in dealing with a bureaucracy, yes. (I have to remind myself, when I have to call my ISP or somewhere over a problem, that the person I am talking to probably did not cause the problem and even if they seem not to care, they're still human).
The one that struck me was "fear." I don't generally get angry out of fear - usually I kind of curl up into a ball and try not to cry when I'm afraid, or I do things to distract myself. But I can see how fear could cause some people to become angry - you have a lot invested in a situation, it seems like whatever is happening at the moment is The Worst Possible Thing of all the worst things that could happen...(I think also lack of perspective plays into it. I know I've dealt with situations from students that from my perspective seemed minor, but from theirs, seemed world-ending. The key is to understand that they have that perspective and hopefully bring them around to seeing that it's not really the end of the world)
He also mentioned that for some people, they know it works and has worked in the past. (Which raises a question I was not brave enough to raise in the session: Is there ever a point where you throw an angry person out of your office? Is there ever a point where your trying to de-escalate, listen, help, all of that, becomes allowing someone to abuse you?)
(And now I'm wondering: what is it about plagiarism that causes me to become so angry? It's not fear, it's not my needs not being met....maybe it's the assumed confrontation I will have to have with the plagiarist (I really hate confrontation), maybe it's a sense of unfairness. I don't know. I've never blown up at a plagiarist; I more generally gripe about it to my colleagues and put the big red 0 on their paper and leave it at that)
But the thing I did like were some of the techniques. As I said, a lot of them are things I already do - listening, not interrupting, saying you're sorry (And really, if it's a case of someone getting bounced around by a bureaucracy, I AM sorry. Bureaucracies are stupid and aggravating). Also, if someone calls you up and starts screaming at you, to listen to them for a minute or two, and then say, "I'm sorry....may I ask who is calling?" and then introduce yourself and say hello, and essentially try gently to remind the other person that you are human. (I've never had anyone do that to me; it seems like the height of rudeness to call someone and not tell them who you are, especially if you are angry and want to tell them why)
But he also talked about "not pushing back" - which is the "karate" I referred to in the title. (Actually, he referenced Aikido, which I am much less familiar with, but apparently the idea is to redirect and guide your attacker's force so you defend yourself while not hurting your attacker). Mainly, the idea is to get the person off-balance so you can figuratively "flip" them - and a big part of that is not letting your "buttons" get pushed.
And he spoke about the value of knowing what your "buttons" are. I think I know most of mine:
1. "You're not responsible, you're not REALLY a grown-up"
2. "You're not competent or good at your job."
3. "You're not doing things fast enough! You're not doing enough! You're a slacker!"
4. "You don't take good care of yourself, you need to eat more restrictively and exercise more and do blah de blah or else you are going to develop some horrible chronic illness and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT"
And while none of those things is actually true - well, probably the stuff that pushes most people's buttons are things that are not actually true but that our Inner Critic TELLS us is true in our darker moments. And so, it hurts to hear someone saying (or seem to be implying) one of those things.
But his big point was that we control how we react - and choosing not to react is one option - to just let the person express their anger but to sit there and listen to them and tell yourself that the things they are trying to draw you in with are not true. And that you can remain calm and not push back, and that is what throws their balance off and can allow for de-escalation. (He played a clip from Seinfeld - it was when Jerry and Elaine went to a car-rental place and they were all out of the size of car he had put in a reservation for....and it was like a case study, on both sides (Jerry and the woman behind the counter) of how not to react when angry or how not to work with an angry person.)
He also talked about how you're not normally conscious of your body language and tone of voice and what you say in an everyday conversation, that would be too exhausting (though I wonder, maybe some of us introverts DO pay more attention to it - I know I do - and that's what makes interacting with people exhausting sometimes), but that it's important to pay attention when you're trying to defuse someone angry, so you don't, for example, cross your arms (maybe your hands are just cold, but they might interpret it as you shutting them out).
He also pointed out that self care is a big part of being able to have the resources to draw on to work constructively with someone who is angry. He made a big point that no one should ever skip lunch. (He is in a campus office; he doesn't regularly teach classes. Having a lunch break is sometimes an impossibility with some schedules. And that may be part of my distress last spring: going from 11 am until 3 pm without a break a couple days a week meant I never got time to clear my head)
He also used the acronym PIES, which made me chuckle to myself, because of course I thought of Pinkie Pie. But PIES stands for "Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, Spiritual" (and he said there should be a second S for "Social") - all the aspects of your life where you need to be sure your own needs are being met so you can constructively work with other people - the idea being if you're over-tired, or hungry, or have stresses at home, you won't be able to work as well with someone who is angry, and I can see that.
(There's another acronym that someone who went through a recovery program told me about: HALT - that you avoid potentially "bad" situations when you are Hungry, Angry (or Agitated), Lonely, or Tired. And that makes sense to me also).
I do like the idea that we are better able to work with people when our own needs have been met, and that maybe some bad situations can be avoided by both parties being well-rested, having had enough food during the day, and feeling like they are being listened to.
No comments:
Post a Comment