Behavioral (Upper Right)
These blogs highlight research that focus on the "behavioral" quadrant of the "All-Quadrant" dimension of Integral Theory.A Tactical View of Anger During Conflict: When Does It Work?
All of us have either seen anger used, or have used it ourselves, in a workplace conflict. It’s safe to say that sometimes it is effective in getting the result the angry person seeks, sometimes it doesn’t, and sometimes it backfires and makes matters worse, generating stubbornness in the person who is the object of the anger. Van Kleef and Cote have looked at the question of whether there is a pattern to when anger works and when it does not, and have concluded that it has something to do with the appropriateness of the expression of anger and the relative power of the two involved in the conflict.
So, what is “appropriate” expression of anger? An appropriate expression of anger is “correct for the situation and in correct proportion to the evoking circumstances.” The researchers in this study let the observer be the judge of propriety.
Here are the key findings:
People with a notable power advantage can be angry all they want – inappropriately or appropriately – with less powerful people and, at least in the short run, get what they want. Low-power people are likely to concede ground in a conflict to high-power people who are angry.
Low-power people, on the other hand, need to be careful about the appropriateness of their anger. If their expression of anger is appropriate, they have a decent shot at gaining some negotiating advantage. If the expression of anger is inappropriate, the more powerful person is more likely to dig his or her heels in and actually give less ground than they might otherwise have given.
Naturally, there are moral implications, not just questions of efficacy, when it comes to expressions of anger. The authors cite at least one – the immunity of high-power people to the negative consequences of inappropriate expressions of anger can be seen as fostering leader tyranny: “our model indicates how anger may be employed as a tool by unethical leaders to achieve their aims.”
What is left for other studies is the long-term impact of the choice to consistently use anger – inappropriate and appropriate – as a negotiating tactic. I’m betting that it isn’t good.
Getting a Higher Appraisal from the Boss: Work Hard, Be Helpful, and Speak Up
We assume that doing a better job will, in a fair universe (and workplace), result in a higher appraisal from one’s supervisor. What has been less obvious to researchers is whether you can also influence that appraisal by voluntarily helping coworkers with their workplace problems and/or speaking up with innovative suggestions for change.
Steven Whiting and his colleagues have moved passed mere correlation to the world of causation and have concluded that “helping” and “voice” behaviors have an independent, significant impact on the boss’s performance evaluation, above and beyond mere task performance.
So, work hard, be helpful, and speak up (helpfully) if you want a raise.
(From "Effects of Task Performance, Helping, Voice, and Organizational Lyoalty on Performance Appraisal Ratings", by Whiting, Podsakoff, and Pierce, 2008, JAP 93(1), 125-139.)
Meditation Can Boost Compassion
In what will be absolutely no surprise to practitioners of mindfulness in all traditions, researchers have found evidence that meditation may be able to increase one's compassion.
While meditators have reported this for several millenia, what makes it interesting is that the study is focusing on the neuroscientific aspects of the phenomenon, or what Integral Theorists might call the "upper-right quadrant". Like it or not, meditators, Western culture requires this sort of inquiry, in addition to individual ("upper-left") and collective ("lower-left") reports that validate this finding from the inside of our experience.
Lutz, Brefczynski-Lewis, Johnstone, and Davidson examined brain activity of expert meditators and novices in meditative and non- meditative states in response to various stimuli selected to evoke empathy. Using neuroimaging, the researchers examined activity in those portions of the limbic region of the brain that have been found to be associated with empathic responses to another's pain.
Not only did the expert meditators' limbic regions show greater sensitivity to the sounds of pain of others than those of the novices, but they also showed a greater overall sensitivity to human sounds revealing emotion than did the novices. The researchers concluded that "the mental expertise to cultivate positive emotion alters the activation of circuitries previously linked to empathy and theory of mind in response to emotional stimuli."
Not being longitudinal, this study did not directly assess whether compassion can be learned. However, the evidence does point in that direction: "The fact that large and systematic changes in brain function were observed in response to auditory emotional stimuli presented during the meditative practice of compassion, and the fact that robust differences were observed between experts and novices, suggests that the next steps to evaluate the behavioral impact of this training and to longitudinally assess its effects are warranted."
That's geek-speak for "let's go get some funding for a longitudinal study to demonstrate that you can learn how to be compassionate by meditating." If we are to move compassion-building out of places of worship into the secular world, this kind of research will be essential.