Or let’s take a setting very far removed from the office: we’ve just arrived at the resort hotel for the vacation we’ve been dreaming of all year. But on the way we were flagged down and ticketed  for exceeding the speed limit. Or, we find that the room we reserved is not ready yet and we’re forced to wait, tired and hungry, in a crowded and drafty reception lounge for an hour and a half.

Now, let’s take out our imaginary “emotion meter” and take a reading of our mood or state of mind during the rest of the day at the office, or the first few days of our vacation.

Our boss’s momentary rudeness (or at least we perceived it as such) is in the past. He may even have apologized, or we may have realized that it was really our fault.  Or the minor discomfort we had to endure on the first day of our vacation didn’t last much longer than sixty minutes.  Great! So why are we making so many mistakes on the job, and why was our lazy day on the sun-drenched beach…well, yes, a lot of fun,  but…not quite as much fun as it was last year?

To be sure, our emotional state at any particular moment affects  our actions, present and immediate future, in so many different ways, and I mentioned some of them in my recent post on defining emotional intelligence. Yet unfortunately, that’s often not the end of the story.

It’s bad enough when some external stimulus, whatever it is, make us feel angry, or disappointed, or irritable, or extremely frustrated, and  so gives rise to a mood or state of mind that can last for several hours, days, or even weeks.

What’s worse is that our emotional state often doesn’t just remain at its initial level. It may escalate in intensity, without warning,  so quickly  that the person feels he is losing control (or sometimes he may not even feel it!). I have seen this referred to  very descriptively as “the spiral effect.” Perhaps an even more appropriate term would be the “one-thing-leads-to-another syndrome.”

Jack and Jill’s little tiff: how they erred

Let’s use our now famous (!!) imaginary couple, Jack and Jill,  to cite a simple and familiar example from everyday life.

After a business meeting had finished sooner than anticipated, Jack calls Jill mid afternoon to tell her that he will be arriving home earlier than usual. Of course, Jill is pleased, and asks him if she could save her a trip by stopping off at the neighborhood supermarket on the way to pick up a few things.  She rattles off the items she wants, and assures Jack that though she might not be at home when he comes,  she’ll be back soon.

Jack arrives home with the goods.  Jill isn’t back yet. He was pleased to help  because he figures Jill must be exhausted  after an especially busy day. Then he has a brainwave: why not help even more by cooking some supper?  So he takes some noodles and eggs and a few other small items from the bag he’s just brought and begins to cook up a dish he knows Jill is fond of.

The pot on the stove is almost ready when Jill walks in.  She ambles over to the stove, opens the pot nervously, and lets out a scream.  A real scream.

“Hey, Jack, have you gone out of your mind?  Are those the noodles you bought? I especially needed them for the meal I promised to take to my sick friend tomorrow. I wanted to use the leftovers from Sunday lunch for supper tonight…now I’ll just have to throw them out. And by the way, you bonehead, you now I always buy brown eggs, not white ones. Can’t you think for once in your life?”

Jack, who just two minutes ago was expecting to be showered with praise for his thoughtfulness,  is overtaken at first with with a numb feeling.   A rather bland, seemingly harmless, sensation.  But the numbness quickly turns to bewilderment, which in turn converts into anger.

And unfortunately, anger breeds more anger. Jack storms out of the kitchen, leaving a badly burned culinary creation to go up in smoke.  And a lovely young couple hardly speaking to each other for several days.

What should Jack have done – while his emotions were still reasonably under control?  First and foremost,  he should have kept reminding himself of his   original intention, what he had set out to achieve in the first place.  If making things easier for his wife was his first priority,  then by definition, that took precedence over a wounded pride or temporary feeling of disquiet!

He might have said: “Look Jill, I’m sorry, but let’s see what we can do; losing our cool won’t get us anywhere.  I’ll pop back to the store to get some more noodles, or maybe I can borrow from our neighbor. Perhaps we could…”

For Jill’s  part, some quick thinking  before Jack’s stormy exit would surely have helped.  “Jack,” she might have said,  “I know you only wanted to help me.  I’m sorry I lost my flap…I must be overtired, I guess. You know what – let’s put your concoction in the freezer…it  will actually be a big help not having to worry about tomorrow’s supper!  And you know, there are some dishes that taste better with white eggs, not brown…”

The problem is as we said: a strong negative emotion will most likely generate a still stronger negative emotion. If it happens to you, will you be able to take one step back and direct your rational side to take charge, before hell breaks lose and everything spirals out of control?

In an upcoming post,  we’ll discuss this kind of situation further.  We’ll analyze the sad case of a hitherto happy and close family that was nearly ripped apart by anger,  see  how the situation could easily have been prevented  and what can still be done to repair the damaged relationships.

Yes, this is a tale of tension between a woman and her son-in-law, who, by all accounts, is a good husband to her daughter. Of course, there are always two sides to every story, and we’re surely in no position to say of either party that he or she is entirely free of blame. To be sure, it can rarely be appropriate for an outsider to pass judgment in a dispute involving other parties.

But what we can say with conviction is that the mother-in-law of our little saga deserves our admiration and praise,, and we’ll see why.

Alice Alexander and her daughter, Tessa, had always been very close. Alice and her husband had been thrilled when Tessa found Jake, the young man of her dreams. After the wedding, the close relationship between mother and daughter continued. At the same time, Alice, by nature a person sensitive to the needs of others, tried to be careful to respect her daughter’s new status as a married woman, to give her husband the honor due to him, and not to say or do anything that might cause offence to either of them.

Imagine Alice’s shock when Jake and Tessa paid an unexpected visit one evening, and after the usual exchange of pleasantries, suddenly announced:

“Look Mom, there’s something that’s been bothering both Tessa and I for some time, and we decided together to come straight out and tell you: you’re coming to visit a little too much and it’s disturbing us. No doubt you mean well and want to help, but we can manage just fine on our own. Our request is this: please don’t ever visit our house again unless we ask you to come…”

Alice turned a deathly white and barely managed to glance at Tessa, who nodded meekly in assent but averted her eyes. Her mother wasn’t fooled. Clearly Tessa was not really in agreement with her husband’s biting comments and bizarre demand.

Turning to Jake, Alice said simply: “I really don’t understand. But I’ve always respected you and will respect your wishes now.”

From that point on, things were never quite the same in the Alexander family. Alice tried as best she could to adjust to the new reality. Mother and daughter remained in frequent contact, but with rare exceptions, only by telephone, and Alice would call only when Jake wasn’t likely to be at home.

One morning, a very anxious Tessa called her mother. She wasn’t feeling well at all, she explained, and especially since a baby was on the way, she didn’t want to take any chances. She knew Jake had a very important business meeting that day and he wouldn’t like to be disturbed. Would her mother have time to accompany her to the doctor?

Late that evening, the phone rang in the Alexander household. Jake was on the line.

“Mom, what’s the matter with you?” he ranted. “A guy’s wife gets sick, and her own husband isn’t entitled to know? What right have you to go with my wife to the doctor, leaving me completely in the dark? Whoever heard of such a crazy thing!”

Alice opened her mouth momentarily and was about to let loose with heaps of pent-up rage. But instead, she bit her lip. And kept quiet.

Things hardly got better when the baby finally arrived. Who asked Alice to give instructions to the nursing home staff? Why did she bring Tessa’s younger sisters to see the baby without clearing with the baby’s father first? How dare she do this, but why didn’t she do that? And she calls herself a mother! What is the world coming to!

Shortly after Tessa arrived home with her baby, Alice paid the two of them a visit – this time , without the required permit from you-know-who!

“Tell me,” asked Alice, ” and be honest with me. Does your husband ever talk to you the way he talks to me?”

“No, never” was the emphatic reply. “Mom, of course I’m sorry that we don’t see each other more often, but you can believe me, I’m happy…”

Alice knew her daughter well enough to understand she was telling the truth. And as far as Alice was concerned, that’s all she needed to know.

True, Jake’s relentless tongue-lashings had hurt her deeply, but her personal feelings were of no consequence. if Jake and Tessa’s relationship, the peace and harmony in the family, were at stake, she was happy to remain quiet. She wasn’t about to rock the boat if there was any chance it might be at the expense of that harmony. Nothing else really mattered.

Did Alice do the right thing? One could argue both ways. But although it took a long time, Jake ultimately came round to showing some remorse for his treatment of his devoted mother-in-law. He eventually apologized for humiliating her by his impulsive outbursts over the years, which, he explained, were only caused by his highly-strung temperament and acute concern for the welfare his beloved wife.

What can we learn from all this? Self-control and the exercise of restraint even in the face of extreme provocation is usually a sign of strength, not weakness. And a wise person is one pulls back from responding impulsively in any situation, but rather carefully weighs up the consequences of his or her actions.

To be more specific, marital conflict can be bad for your health. A growing body of research now bears this out, points out Dr Joshua Coleman, prolific contributor to our site (as well as dozens of media outlets around the world) on parenting and family dynamics, in his e-newsletter, The Coleman Report .

Some of the evidence: Ongoing marital conflict appears to worsen the symptoms of women with rheumatoid arthritis and results in elevated blood pressure for both men and women. Marital conflict may also worsen the symptoms of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s. And more.

But it’s not only a question of physical health, and observable physical symptoms are only part of it. Nor is it only the two spouses that suffer. Dr Coleman reminds us that high conflict marriages also interfere with the ability to parent for both genders.

Studies show that fathers are more likely to withdraw from their children and from the parenting role in marriages that are characterized by ongoing conflict. In addition, they may become more negative and intrusive with their children than fathers in satisfactory marriages, or mothers in poor marriages.

Other studies reveal that the mother’s feelings about the father can affect how much he stays involved with the kids and how much he enjoys being a Dad. Angry mothers are more likely to try and exclude fathers from child involvement than mothers who aren’t angry. Both mothers and fathers are more likely to be depressed in a high conflict marriage.

Dr. Coleman alerts us to some of the most common underlying causes of marital strife. Typically, a combination of several are involved. These include: growing up in a home where there was ongoing marital conflict, outside stressors (such as worry over money, career, in-laws), and inside stressors (such as differences in parenting attitudes, division of household labor, spending habits, differences in sex drive, etc.).

Most telling of all, in most high conflict marriages, one or both spouses have never learned how to communicate.

The bottom line: if the above sounds painfully familiar, get help now! However hopeless the situation may seem to you right now, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have only two choices: get divorced or live a life of hell forever. Far from it; you may be pleasantly surprised.

Ed is a highly competent and successful CEO, respected and admired by many in the business world. He has good manners and for the most part, is respectful of others. On the other hand, his modus operandi is characterized by that typical signature-tune of highly pressured, impatient executives: “Gimme the bottom line!”

“Leaders like Ed,” observes Dr. Goulston, “are superb problem-solvers when given the data,
and like data machines, they can’t stand it when people belabor points with irrelevant details and stories.”

So the writer tells Ed that he’s highly impressed with his fine character and all his abilities and accomplishments. On hearing this heartwarming praise, Ed already senses that there’s a “but” coming, and he asks Dr. Goulston what it is. His reply, apparently, was totally unexpected, and although Ed was somewhat puzzled by it, he did not dispute it:

“I wouldn’t want my sister to marry you!” Why? “Because she would die of loneliness.”

Dr Goulston explains: “What Ed failed to appreciate – as do many leaders who are goal driven to a fault – is that, especially at the end of the day, especially at home, the telling of the story is the data. The story itself is not all that matters. And for the data to compute in the right way to be satisfying (instead of frustrating) to the person talking, Ed and leaders like him need to provide unhurried and undivided attention.”

In other words, when busy, goal oriented, and- inevitably – intimacy-challenged business people and professionals like Ed and his ilk finally touch base with their spouses at the end of the day, “Get to the point” or “Spare me the details” just won’t cut it. In fact, a demand to “get to the point” is missing the point. Totally. No way to sustain an intimate relationship.

Dr Goulston quotes the eminent psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion who talks about the overriding need to “listen without memory or desire.” Listening with “memory” means you have an old agenda you’re trying to plug someone into; when you listen with “desire” you have a new agenda you’re trying to do the same thing with.

But in either case, these are your agendas not the other person’s. And the other party isn’t fooled for a second.

For more insight on this topic, read the gripping but sad tale of the mysterious Harold Burwell, everybody’s dream boss. Or check out my own contribution on the subject.

Implementing a solution can be far from easy, points out Dr. Peter Pearson, but nevertheless there is a solution, and in a popular article on our site, he outlines a formula for getting the results you want.

Yes, it’s a matter of apologizing, but what does that mean?

Dr Pearson writes that in the early days of his marriage, the mere mumbling of two basic words was sometimes sufficient to calm ruffled feathers and heal bruised feelings. “It was as if I had a license to do what I wanted – as long as I looked sincere and said ‘I’m sorry’. It was like having a ‘Get out of jail free’ Monopoly card.”

But he soon found out that just mumbling a couple of standard words under his breath, or even speaking them out loud or even with all the conviction in his command, wouldn’t get him very far for too long.

Dr Pearson and his wife, Dr. Ellyn Bader, work as a professional team and are the founders of The Couple’s Institute. In this month’s issue of their Practice Development Dispatch ezine, they revisit the topic of the key role of the apology in resolving marital conflicts. They quote a fascinating research project of a few years ago to illustrate and emphasize a couple of critical points.

The research study in question, conducted by law Professor Jennifer Robbennolt of Columbia University, really just confirms what we knew – or should have known – all along. Participants, ages 21 to 70, read a scenario describing a pedestrian-bicycle accident. They were asked to take on the role of the injured pedestrian and evaluate a settlement offer from the other party, based on information about the injuries, the other party’s conduct, and each party’s responsibility for causing the accident.

Important to note here that the settlement that the offender suggested did not fully cover all the costs of the accident.

Robbennolt found that when a full apology was given, 73 percent of the respondents would accept the settlement offer. When no apology was given, 52 percent would accept, but very interestingly, only 35 percent would accept when a partial apology was given (meaning that the bicyclist did not take responsibility for the accident).

“An offender who offered a full apology was seen as experiencing more regret, as being more moral and more likely to be careful in the future than one offering a partial or no apology,” commented Prof. Robbennolt.

The bottom line, and this is crucial: people who feel injured or wronged want to know that the other understands and acknowledges the essence of what they did wrong! This is the prerequisite and starting point for moving forward.

Dr. Bader elaborates that the research results remind her of her many therapy sessions with couples where one party has deceived the other. The offending party often wants to rush it through with some very perfunctory expression of guilt, and then put everything behind them. Sometimes even expensive gifts are given in an attempt to alleviate unspoken guilt. “I said I was sorry. Why aren’t you getting over it faster? Why are you beating me up?”

But more often than not, such an approach just doesn’t cut! A primary reason why they are not getting it over faster is precisely because a clear, unambiguous and sincere admission of guilt has not been forthcoming!

Dr. Bader sums it up by citing an old African proverb that is equally relevant in so many interpersonal situations:

“It is easier to put out fire in the house of neighbors than to deal with the smoke in one’s
own.”

Indeed, there are probably few things more difficult for people to achieve than the fault that lies within themselves.

May we all merit, when the occasion arises, to rise to the challenge!