I am a Queen not a Saint: Making Anger work for you
Years ago I read a book The Upside of your Dark Side, which completely changed my perspective on negative emotions. (I believe National Library Board still holds this book)
Anger is important and powerful, but we label it as a negative emotion so often. There is so much self-help material out there giving advice that teach you how to suppress it or even get rid of your anger entirely. However, humans are wired to feel anger for a good reason, and when properly expressed, it can help you drive positive outcomes.
I am a fan of the Netflix series "The Crown". Everybody seems to be gushing over the first two seasons, but my personal favourite were the last two seasons. At the time Imelda Staunton played the Queen, she was looking back at how her reign at shaped and changed her and what that meant for her identity and her family. In contrast, I found Claire Foy's QEII to be emotionally stunted and one-track minded. However, rewatching Seasons 1 and 2 gave me a new perspective and I discovered there was so much meaning behind her portrayal.
I found Claire Foy's young Elizabeth a good case study of our topic at hand.
Elizabeth gets angry with her PM, Winston Churchill, for hiding an illness from her
Elizabeth (QEII) ascended the throne at 25 after the sudden death of her father. Despite her newfound authority, she had to face the judgement and prejudice of her older, male advisers, many of whom had more political and worldly experience.
This part was unspoken in the show but we could tell that she was under immense pressure everytime she had to assert herself for the sake of the Crown. For instance, her credibility would be eroded should she express her anger wrongly at a disrespectful advisor who might turn out to be right, her lack of experience which made her doubt her own judgement at times, and the gender prejudice of the 1950s (which might result in her earning herself a poor reputation should she come off as too demanding. The flashbacks to her childhood and the close-ups of her subtle body language (wringing her hands, for instance) showed how nervous she was every time she found herself in a position where she had to assert herself.
Claire Foy portrayed the conflicted emotions very well, trying to maintain a stoic and authoritative front, fearlessly standing up to the condescension she faced. This similarly reflects the inner struggle most of us have every time we decide to express any form of dissatisfaction.
I know that there is a lot of advice out there saying things along the lines of: don't assume their intentions give them the benefit of doubt, take deep breaths etc. Some of these coaches even charge money for this advice that we've probably heard thousands of times.
I'm not going to be telling you any of that. I have never, and will not, teach anybody to be nice or to bend over backwards just to avoid conflict at the expense of achieving desired outcomes. I teach people to be effective and to make the world a better place by fundamentally solving problems at their core. I do this for free because my methods may not suit every context or every personality, this is just how I choose to channel my anger.
Navigating my anger has been a decades-long journey for me, and I definitely wouldn't say I am an expert at it today. I have managed to break down my lessons learned into this six steps manual that hopefully helps people to channel their anger in an efficient, diginified way.
Elizabeth in the early days of her reign displaying raw anger at Prince Phillip
1. Recognise the level of anger that you are experiencing.
Being the MS Paint Queen that I am, I created this very rudimentary "Pyramid of Anger" on which classify the different levels of anger which we experience.
For instance, when someone exposes you to danger knowingly, it is critical that you put a stop to it immediately. However, if you go to a toy capsule machine (you know those in Tokyo? the ones that disepense toys in a capsule but what you get is entirely up to chance?) and you don't get the toy you want after multiple attempts, smashing the machine and screaming in anger may not be the most appropriate response.
It is important to have a strong sense of self and to understand what your own values are. (I always preach at work: "what are your fundamental principles?") It prevents people from gaslighting you, telling you you are over-reacting, that you are making unreasonable demands, because you know what they have inflicted upon you is a violation of your core principles and you have the right to not have any of it.
What were Elizabeth's core guiding principles? I think Claire Foy's QEII has always made it clear as day: The Crown. Everything she did was to uphold the values of the British Royal Family, which shaped the approach she took towards her husband's refusal to follow royal protoccol, her sister's relationship with Peter Townsend, to how she related to her Prime Ministers. We may look at it from a contemporary lens and think of it as extreme narrow-mindedness, but those were the rules of that time and place. Anybody who disagreed with it could feel free not to deal with the Royal Family.
Queen Elizabeth forbade Princess Margaret's marriage to Peter Townsend, a divorcee who was 12 years her senior.
Similarly, maybe you are a racial minority and your fundamental principle is no racism from the people who want to deal with you. However, further up the hierarchy, you may be ok with your friends liking pizza with pineapples even if it irritates you to have to eat it, and can make compromises.
2. Admit that you are not happy with the situation in which you find yourself.
I think the easy part is knowing that a situation is not ideal for yourself.
The difficult part is outwardly admitting that you are unhappy, because of a few reasons: i) uncertainty that the situation justifies an unhappy/angry response, ii) fear of rejection, should the receiving party not take it well. On a larger level, it could be a fear of a negative self-image. You may fear that in expressing displeasure, you may be perceived as difficult, or at worst, aggressive and problematic.
Therefore, at this point, we do all sorts of mental gymnastics to prevent ourselves from having got to express that displeasure at all. Like, "giving people the benefit of a doubt". "Oh, maybe they didn't mean harm" "Maybe they just had a bad day" How many self-help books and coaches have harped on this?
I want to reframe this issue a bit. Instead ask yourself- "why does it matter what their intentions are?"
"Maybe they are not really an asshole" to that I ask, "How do you know they aren't really one?"
There is a saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of whether those people had the best intentions in the world when they violated your boundaries, the fact is still that they violated your boundaries. For example, a colleague who does not pull their weight at work may have the most valid reasons, but the effect is the same- you have to pick up their slack and this affects the time you have left for more important things. If you are in a team, it will negatively affect the morale of the team. The danger with "giving people the benefit of doubt" is that you are silently condoning toxic behaviour. Hence, you need to clearly express to this person that they should not carry on the way they are, whichever way you choose to express it.
3. Get comfortable with asserting your needs, ONCE, DIRECTLY, AND FIRMLY.
During Queen Elizabeth II's Commonwealth tour in the early days of her reign, she was advised against travelling to a particular region because of security concerns, both by her advisors and by her husband Prince Phillip. However, Elizabeth was adamant on pressing with the trip as she did not want to disappoint her people and compromise her values as a Queen, and this was her response to her advisor.
"I am aware that I am surrounded by people who feel that they could do the job better. Strong people with powerful characters, who may be better suited from leading from the front. But for better or worse, the Crown has landed on my head, so I say, WE GO."
Translation: "They may think they are better than me, but I'm the one who is the Queen, too bad lor! They listen to what I say!"
After recognising that your own feelings are valid, and rationalising why you are unhappy about a situation, state this clearly in one swift statement.
To help yourself, you can use this template:
"This situation is not ideal because XXXX. If you don't have a valid reason to act this way (this part is optional- it is entirely up to you if you want to accept their excuses or not), I want you to stop."
Claire Foy's lines struck me because of how short and sharp (and some may even call it snappy) they were. It is important that your statement contains no assumptions at this point, meaning even if you suspect someone was being a dick on purpose, don't dish out that accusation until they positively demonstrate evidence in this conversation. This would have answered your question as to whether they deserve the benfit of doubt, whether they meant it, etc. Then you can throw the ball back to them and point out that they are behaving badly.
Have you watched how Westerners communicate? Have you realised how they seem to just ask for and do whatever they want, but they are not offensive about it? Short clear statements, that's how. They don't worry so much about how they might be perceived, if asking for what they want directly might be "not very nice", and in turn, risk letting minor annoyances build up into full-scale resentment.
The second key is emotional detachment. There's no yelling, screaming, personal attacks or crying. This just gives the other party blackmail capital, to turn against you in social setting by painting you as hysterical and unreasonable.
You need to have this mental model that you approached this conversation with one goal only, to express that "This situation is not ideal because XXXX. If you don't have a valid reason to act this way (this part is optional- it is entirely up to you if you want to accept their excuses or not), I want you to stop." The other party need not consent to adhering to this contract. If at any point in time the reasonable conversation ends and the gaslighting, shouting and accusations come from them, disengage, BLOCK AND DELETE, accept that they are not rational human beings and leave. Don't complain, don't explain.
4. When fundamental boundaries are crossed
QEII to the Duke of Windsor: "There is no possibility of my forgiving you. The question is, how on Earth do you forgive yourself?"
What happens if you experience something which disagrees with what you stand for at your very core?
The method I described in Point 3 mostly applies to ordinary violation of boundaries. For example, if a friend constantly uses calls you in the middle of the night and disrupts your sleep, speaking with short, strong statements without mixing in too much emotion gets your message across.
However, what if the friend continues to call you in the middle of the night despite your clear communication? I think this is the point where it stops being an issue of boundaries, and evolves further down the pyramid of anger to become an issue of moral principles. If a friend starts demonstrating a fundamental lack of respect and consideration for you, your response to that may also change.
As a young Queen, Elizabeth had to stand up to members of the royal family. She ceased being just a niece/sister, she was now the sovereign as well as the Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
You can see how she handled a violation of everything she represented in her uncle's (Duke of Windsor) suspected involvement with the Nazis. She did not believe the telegrams and letters that were leaked at first, but her worst fears were confirmed after her meeting with Tommy Lascelles, the Duke of Windsor's private secretary when he was King. Betraying one's country is violating a fundamental core value to QEII, and she made her point clear as day in an audience with him, ignoring all his gaslighting about the Royal Family's inhumanity.
Prince Phillip: "You protected your country and the reputation of your family."
5. When it becomes personal
Queen Elizabeth to her advisor, after she had caught wind of FLOTUS Jacqueline Kennedy bad-mouthing her: "Let's made the audience (with her) at Windsor Castle. Sometimes, only a fortress will do."
What happens if you dislike the person you are engaging with? If you wouldn't engage with a person on a normal day and every interaction with this person triggers you, but you cannot avoid them because of circumstances (i.e. you work together)?
I think this falls back to a fundamental question of managing relationships. You need to understand that you disliking people (and people disliking you in turn) is normal, and that we cannot expect to get along with everybody we meet.
Since I like using pyramids I classify my relationships with people in the following way:
- Base: close family and friends, people I feel safe to discuss my most personal issues with
- Level 2: Friends in the outer circle
- Level 3: Professional Relationships
- Level 4: Strangers
- Level 5: DO NOT APPROACH
Depending on the time I've known an individual and the perceived common values we have, I assign everyone to various levels. People in different levels are given different levels of access to me. If through my interactions I gain new information about these people, I will change their assigned level accordingly.
Between Queen Elizabeth and Jacqueline Kennedy, QEII initially placed her in Level 5, because Jacqueline's reputation and Prince Phillip's obsession with her made her jealous. However, after a private conversation with Jacqueline and both had loosened up, we could see QEII slowly placing her in Level 2 (perhaps on the lower rungs of that). Then when Jacqueline Kennedy's awful remarks about her behind her back got reported back to her, Jacqueline got placed squarely into Level 3. I say Level 3 instead of Level 5 because QEII still granted her an audience at Windsor Castle after the incident, rather than turn her away completely.
However, during that audience at Windsor Castle, it's clear the dynamic had changed. From show of force to stiff body language and the fact QEII tried to completely dismiss and skirt the issue of the foolish comments, meant she no longer trusted Jaqueline Kennedy. Even in the face of Jacqueline's Kennedy's sincere apology and open sharing of vulnerabilities, QEII stayed silent instead of reciprocating with an honest sharing of her feelings.
What does this mean to you? It means that you get to decide how much effort you want to spend being angry with this person, depending on how you see this person.
With a friend in Level 2 or above, I will probably take the time and effort to discuss my feelings and work out a compromise, if they make me angry.
With someone Level 3
or below? I do not invest the same amount emotionally into a colleague, so I will keep my displeasure factual, won't over-explain, and if they prove themselves too immature to understand, I just silently disengage, and tell them this project/task cannot move on unless we compromise. I won't get personally affected (cos they are nobody to me), spend any time having small talk or interact with them outside of work - hence I don't open up opportunities for them to piss me off more. Some relationships are best kept professional.
"There is ice in your veins when there needs to be."
Someone in Level 5? Just don't engage at all and leave.
Some of you may say, when it comes to colleagues or strangers: "But if Queen Elizabeth did not give Jacqueline Kennedy the chance to explain herself, she would not have found out that the latter did not mean it, and was under the influence of drugs!" Yes, they can explain themselves, by all means, and I will choose if I want to accept it or not. However, I won't chase them for an explanation, I just observe and respond accordingly.
6. Using anger strategically
Sometimes, you want to display anger to drive a larger agenda, or to send a message, even if you personally do not feel aggrieved by it.
While Seasons 1 and 2 did not have very prominent examples of this, Season 4 had one prominent incident: when Queen Elizabeth allowed the publishing of an "alleged rift" between herself and her Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher) in the Sunday Times. She typically did not comment publicly on her Prime Ministers, but felt she wanted to make an execption to send the public a message that she was displeased with the PM's lack of support for her in South Africa.
QEII to her advisor: "What if I am not happy with the job she (the Prime
Minister) is doing? What if I'd be happy to tell people the displeasure
was actually real? That I am personally concerned about her lack of
compassion? You know how seriously I take my constitutional responsibility to remain silent but each of us has our line in the sand. And if it were to become public knowledge that there had been an unprecedented rift between sovereign and Prime Minister, would that really be so bad?"
QEII's disagreement with the Prime Minister regarding imposing sanctions on the South African Apartheid
I have personally seen countless examples of this at play in my workplace. Where I work, every wrong decision or wilful disregard for rules can cause danger to life and limb. Many supervisors use anger to create a culture of compliance, and to instill a healthy regard for Standard Operating Procedures. The higher you climb, the more you may find yourself needing to exercise this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The young Queen Elizabeth II showed us that we don't have to be overly polite, yielding, compromising at our own detriment. However, I think what's also important is that she taught us about living her values, and standing true to her commitment to her country. Without which, her anger cannot be fully understood by those around her.
Another important thing to note here is that anger must come from a ethical place, a desire to make things better. There is a growing number of people who think bluntness is a virtue, and are proud of their insensivity. They will go out of their way to be unkind to those who don't deserve it. These people will only be known as self-centred, poor team players, assholes, but they will never be respected.
You can have a thousand techniques to demonstrate your anger politely but assertively. However, this is on the pre-condition that you yourself must be professional, civilised and above board. When people know what you stand for at your core, only then you will be respected.
Comments
Post a Comment