In my workplace stress is a real issue. “Do more with less” has become the unspoken mantra, while organizational leaders are still touting the title of being “a great place to work”. I and other managers are seeing our staff increasingly suffer from emotional exhaustion and physical illness. Our director just informed us that we will all be taking EQi assessments and training to help with stress management. Some of us managers have talked about it and don?t see the point. What are your thoughts?

As you have noticed, stress often leads to decreased morale, decreased productivity, increased in-fighting and increased absenteeism. If left unchecked, it can also lead to a toxic work culture.

Increased stress does not have to lead to these things. When people can recognize their own emotions and those of others, understand these emotions and learn to respond to emotional situations in an effective way, they are able to work in harmony, maintain strong, mutually supportive relations and increase morale and productivity.

Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer define emotional intelligence as “the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one?s own and others? feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide ones thinking and actions.”

Our thinking and actions are the culprits that get us in hot water, ruffle the feathers of others, keep us feeling stressed out and send us into a negative spiral. And all of this can happen without us even realizing that we are creating the stressful situation ourselves.

Take Rheana, for example. She has worked with a nonprofit agency for 12 years, has seen the ups and downs of funding and has been in fear of losing her job many times when the agency has had to reapply for new program dollars. She has developed relations with the other organizations in her region and beyond. These relationships are important for collaboration and working together to best serve and support the community; however, they are also strained because they quite often compete for funding and community support. The board of her agency has been the same for 15 years, and the members often have conflicting ideas about where the agency should be heading. Sometimes a few board members overstep their bounds and direct the activity of staff members — often giving direction that conflicts with the agency policy and the contract requirements. Rheana is good at her work; she is outgoing and enjoys socializing with others that she has worked with for a long period of time, as well as meeting new people.

Rheana also has been dealing with health issues, and has yet to get to them bottom of the problem. Her health concerns take up a lot of space in her head. She is hoping to be able to retire within a few years.

Sue is one of Rheana?s co-workers. Sue has worked for the agency for two years. She moved to this position from another organization that offers similar services and she has been in the field for seven years. She has relationships with the other service providers in the area, she recognizes the politics of competing for contracts, but chooses not to get involved. Sue follows the policy of the organization, completes her work quickly and is always willing to take on additional tasks to help out her co-workers. She is good at getting things accomplished, is introverted and prefers not to socialize too much on the job.

Sue is a single parent and expects to be in the workforce for at least 10 – 15 more years before considering retirement. She studies on the side and maintains a regular exercise routine.

Rheana was approached by a potential client at the front office about a specific program. Shortly into their conversation, Rheana realized that the potential client did not meet the criteria for the program she wanted to access. The client insisted that another agency told her she would be eligible. Rheana then booked the potential client to see Sue. Prior to the appointment, she informed Sue that the client did not meet the criteria for programs.

Rheana was approached by Sue after the appointment. Sue vented about the client that Rheana had referred and stated that the client did not meet the criteria for the program. The client was not happy to have been referred only to find out that she was not eligible to participate. Sue went on to say that she had calmed the unhappy client down and that she did not understand why the other referral agencies referred folks that were clearly not eligible.

Rheana did not say anything to Sue at the time. Instead, after Sue was out of ear shot, Rheana expressed her anger to another worker in the office. She was very angry with Sue for what she thought was a personal attack on her. This went on for months; Rheana would talk about it to anyone who would listen, except, of course, Sue herself.

Sue noticed a shift in energy, but could not pin-point it. She had a sense that the negative energy was coming from Rheana, but had no evidence. She asked another co-worker if he knew what was going on. He simply stated that she should ask Rheana. That was enough evidence for Sue to know the negative energy was coming from Rheana. But she did not approach Rheana about it. If Rheana was in close proximity, Sue would feel anxious, nervous and get tense in the shoulders, so she avoided Rheana at all costs. She also started to watch what she said around other co-workers because she was unsure about how her opinions would be received and interpreted.

In time, there was increased tension in the office, camps were being formed and communication was stinted. Of course, this had an impact on the overall morale in the office which in turn had an impact on client services.

So, what happened? Both Rheana and Sue were responding in their own natural way to a stressful situation. What could have been done differently? Most readers were probably in the process of forming camps (or taking sides) as they were reading this, while others may have been quick to find fault in how the situation was handled.

When breaking down the thoughts and feeling of both Rheana and Sue, this is what we found…

Rheana:
Perception:	Perceived that the “venting” was aimed at her, that her knowledge and professionalism were being questioned.
Thoughts	Feelings
How dare a newer and younger worker question me? I have been here for years. She shouldn’t have questioned me. Who does she think she is? I won’t tolerate that. She needs to be put in her place. I’ll show her.	Surprised, threatened, suspicious, embarrassed, angry

 

Sue:
Perception:	Perceived that Rheana was “out to get her” and could not be trusted.
Thoughts	Feelings
If she is not willing to talk to me about whatever it is that’s bothering her, it’s not worth my time. What she is doing is childish and mean. She’s out to get me. Anything I say might be used against me. I wonder if everyone is doing that here. Can I trust anyone? I better watch what I say. I better just keep quiet and do my job.	Threatened, fearful, cautious, anxious

 

In reviewing the thoughts and feelings of the two women, we can see how their behaviours would be influenced in a negative way and garner a negative response from one another.

Some refer to this as the ladder of inference: one negative assumption feeds a negative behaviour, which feeds the negative assumption, which feeds the negative behaviour. And so goes the spiral of negative self fulfilling prophecy.

The internal thought processes of both women influenced how they behaved. What they didn?t realize was that their perception of the events was not necessarily the reality of the events. Once each of them reviewed their perceptions, thoughts and feelings and were able to clarify a more logical reality, they were able to better understand one another and communicate effectively.

This incident describes a common scenario in the workplace. The stress level of every staff member was increased by this one interaction between two co-workers. The overall morale of staff in the agency was impacted and the work environment became toxic.

By developing their emotional intelligence, these women were able to get their working relationship back on track and the workplace was able to move towards a more harmonious atmosphere. The workplace stressors are still there, but people have been able to better manage negative events and have improved their ability to cope with them.

That is the beauty of emotional intelligence: it can be taught, developed and honed. If your employer is implementing EQi assessments, there is nothing to be afraid of; this could be a great opportunity for you, your co-workers and your organization to become much stronger.

To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Kathline directly.

For more information about workforce planning, assistance with your workforce planning needs or to attend our upcoming webinar on this topic, please visit www.gailforceresources.com or email: info@gailforceresources.com.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may no longer be accurate.