Bower:     Well, those interests grew up with me a long time ago. I was raised in St. Peter, Minnesota where my father was a lawyer who from my early childhood took me around the state when he was getting legal depositions from people. On these trips he always told me all about his cases. One time I asked him, "Dad, why do you do this?" And he said, "Because it's the right thing to do." Well, that somehow stuck with me and during my school years I always tried to see that the right thing was being done for those classmates who couldn't speak up for themselves. Then when I grew up, I found that being unable to speak up to right a wrong is not just a problem for teenagers, it is a widespread malady. It was in the early 1970's when I returned to graduate school that I met with many frustrated, passive women, coming for counseling to Stanford's Behavioral Counseling Clinic. It was there that I developed my program in assertiveness to help people speak up forcibly for their rights and opinions. And here I am today, still proposing that assertiveness is an important behavior for solving interpersonal problems, because it helps people learn the appropriate and effective communication skills that help them get at the problem and not at each other.

Bowen:     When people find themselves in a situation when they're not speaking up, what typically happens?

Bower:     If they can't speak up and they want to, they are likely to become very emotional. Even seemingly "passive" people experience a lot of physiological arousal, and they put themselves down a lot: "What's the matter with me? I never can speak up." By blaming themselves, their anger becomes self-destructive, turning inward and becoming resentment. However, sometimes blame is attributed to others: "What's the matter with them? Why don't they stop it?" By talking to ourselves in this negative, aggressive way, self-talk can eventually become hurtful to others by saying too much too soon. When we blame ourselves we hurt ourselves, and when we blame others we hurt them, a process that often escalates into violence. Our attitudes toward ourselves and others are determined in large part by how we talk to ourselves. Our negative internal monologues can talk us into remaining passive victims of self-hate and depression, or into aggressive perpetrators of mayhem and violence or into clear-headed, more objective problem-solvers.

Bowen:     So, in those situations where people feel helpless, that is, they are in situations where they think the outcome is predetermined and there isn't anything they think they can do about it, then the outcome is likely to be anger?

Bower:     Yes, but anger has many faces. Anger can be expressed in a worker's angry words and body language that escalates into violence. It can also be expressed indirectly, such as nasty gossiping, taking many sick days, coming to work late, taking extra long lunch hours and breaks and so on. However, when anger can be expressed in a civil manner, then it has a proper function in the workplace. When people can address a problem in an open, direct, assertive manner, they can get at the problem and not at each other. There are definitely times when we need to lodge a legitimate complaint. We often need to speak up for ourselves or for someone else because our basic human rights are being violated, including the right to be treated with positive regard.

So, anger has it's place, but anger can get out of hand when people do not know how to speak to themselves or to each other with positive personal regard. For example, helpless, angry people can't describe a situation objectively. They can't express feelings without blaming. They can't even ask for what they need in order not to be dissatisfied. And they can't stipulate positive rewards or, if necessary, realistic punishments. When people do not have the skill to use objective language (diplomatic language we might call it), they're very likely to resort to violent speech and violent actions, good examples of which are readily available all around us. We see hundreds of examples of violence everywhere . Just turn on a typical TV drama or talk show, or notice the many movies where violence is modeled with violent language and brutal actions filling the screen. So, it's very easy, very natural, for people to copy models of violence as their way of getting rid of a problem, rather than taking a more objective, less emotional way to solve their interpersonal conflicts. Nevertheless, if people are to use a different style to solve their problems, a new set of language skills that emphasize assertive language as a way to solve interpersonal conflict needs to be taught.

Bowen:     From your experience and personal information gathering, can you cite situations where people have been fearful or angry and perhaps what those circumstances were all about?

Bower:     Oh, yes. A number of typical workplace problems have been identified. For instance, people get angry when they feel they're being left out of the decision-making process, where boundaries are unclear regarding space or favors or conversations, when there are very serious conflicts between units or departments and there isn't leadership at the top, where there are conflicting demands within a department, where things come down from the top without any discussion at all, where people are
given feedback only for poor performance, and they're never told what they do right. Workers, however, often say they are fearful of confronting other people because they might lose their job. There is fear of criticism by others, office gossiping, a feeling of lack of career progress or lack of control over one's work, unclear job responsibilities, under-utilization of skills, and the list goes on and on. If these problems are not addressed on a one-on-one basis or in small groups, they will continue to fester until they fuel violence in the workplace. Unsolved problems have a way of spreading, invading every part of the workforce, and they will cost companies a great deal of money -much more money, than if the company put preventive -strategies in place to deal with all the current unrest and uncertainty.

Bowen:     What has been the situation with respect to downsizing?

Bower:     A lot of negative repercussions have resulted from downsizing. People feel they aren't wanted, they aren't valued, self-esteem escapes them and it takes a lot of work for them to regain their courage and confidence. I am often brought in to help people learn new skills for dealing with a bad past and to help them move on into the future. Again, it is much more difficult and expensive to tackle these problems of discontent after they've been allowed to ferment for weeks and months than to provide communication training to help workers resolve problems quickly.

More and more companies are learning the high cost of losing human capital. One of the saddest aspects of all of this downsizing is reflected in the silent exodus of women workers who are unlikely to act out their discontent in violent ways. Instead, they remain silent about grievances and simply leave companies when they feel they are not respected or promoted or paid adequately. However, the recent exodus of aggrieved women at Merrill Lynch was not silent, so through their example, more women may change their silent exodus to a more audible one. Nevertheless, when you consider that 65% of all the new workers in the '90s have been women, we might expect a large number of those women to become disillusioned and silent about their grievances. And if they feel helpless to change matters, they simply leave for another company. And that leaving costs companies a lot of money.

According to Time Magazine's April 25th, 1994, issue, when the employees leave, it costs a company. A business stands to lose $10,000 when the average employee leaves. If a manager or a director or a vice-president leaves, the cost can be $50,000 and well beyond. And then it costs that company more money to hire new people. Expenses, such as big head-hunting fees, signing bonuses, moving expenses, big compensation plans, all take away from the bottom line. It behooves business to pay attention to teaching people how to get along better in the workplace, so instead of being nervous, discontented workers, who flee to another company, they become loyal workers who stay and grow the business.

We simply must develop a new social contract that tells people the rules, the limits for angry expressions. We must develop the human skills that will help us get along better in our businesses, in our homes, and on our roadways. Businesses are in the ideal position to teach these new human communication skills. Because businesses have a controlled setting, they can most easily take the lead and teach these new assertive skills. And it can't be, "Everybody come into the cafeteria and we'll have a bag lunch and learn about anger." Industry has to commit more time and more money to specific training. It is labor-intensive to teach a diverse culture of people how to use assertive, problem-solving language that gets at problems and not at people. But I have found workers eager to learn how they can relate to others in a way that helps them solve interpersonal conflict in the most effective way and does so with less emotional and physical stress.

Bowen:     I certainly appreciate your emphasis on the employer. What about the responsibility of the individual? And why is it important for the individual to speak out?

Bower:     It is important for the individuals to speak out, but it also depends on what they're speaking out about, and when, and where. This idea that you have to speak up because you have to get it off your chest is not a good enough reason. This kind of unthinking venting is often not a very wise move. Many people have relieved their chest and they are leaving the company very quickly. Rather, we want to teach people how to speak up when it is appropriate. Aristotle said a long time ago, "It's easy to fly into a passion, anybody can do that, but to be angry with the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, and in the right way, that's not easy." Those are the problem-solving skills I'm trying to teach through a script-writing approach to assertiveness training, which is, essentially, rewriting your old inefficient passive or aggressive scripts and making them assertive.

Bowen:     Sharon, I know in your programmed guide, The Assertive Advantage, you present a model for speaking up, and it would be helpful if you would tell us a little about that model.

Bower:     My four-step model for solving interpersonal conflict is called DESC. It helps people develop the mental control strategies for cooling down and for developing a style of language that objectively DESCribes the problem situation, hence, the D of DESC. The E stands for expressing feelings and thoughts without blaming the other person. S stands for specifying behavior changes that you would like the other person to commit to, and, finally, the C stands for laying out the realistic and reasonable
consequences, such as positive rewards and, if necessary, negative consequences or reasonable punishments. So this four-step method for solving interpersonal conflict, DESC, uses script-writing as a way to learn how to use assertive language that helps people solve problems and get along better. It is like a road map, that helps a person carve a careful, clear and direct approach through a mine field of conflict.

Assertiveness training, then, should help people play less the outraged victim and more the assertive problem-solver. Teaching assertive behavior is one of the underused techniques for helping people solve an interpersonal problem. I've found it is one of the most effective training tools that can be easily and systematically taught to help restore the healthy heartbeat little by little in today's pressure-filled organizations.

Bowen:     And certainly in organizations that are going through restructuring, re-engineering, downsizing, reallocation of resources, whatever terminology you wish to use, people have the choice of either being a victim or taking some control over their situation and asserting themselves in some way. Would you agree with that?

Bower:     Yes! Yes! Before workers can take responsibility, however, they need to know how they can take responsibility. In other words, what can they say and do to make things better, not worse? When I develop a stress inoculation program, I emphasize that this kind of training has to be done in small groups. As I said earlier, it can't be done in a big cafeteria with, "Now, we're going to talk about anger." It has to take place in small groups of 8 to 14 people, where individuals really learn relaxation
techniques, proper breathing , and meditating, as well as all the other calming things that we can learn to calm our nerves and consolidate our wits. The activities include simple things such as taking a quiet walk or even rocking in a rocking chair! Because anger involves physiological arousal, it is important to control and calm our physiological responses, such as increased heart rate, sweating, dry mouth -or whatever particular cues trigger a person to feel too much and think too little.

So, controlling our level of physiological arousal is one way to reduce extreme emotional responses that can escalate into violence in the workplace, at home, and on the roadways. Other techniques that people need to know about are things like taking time-out, isolating oneself, withdrawing a little bit. And there is proof that people who are able to be alone for a while, will reduce their physiological arousal and anger by those means. This social isolation strategy is also supported by stress research. People in stressful occupations often report that temporarily isolating themselves away from everyone else or from their families for a few minutes even upon returning home in the evening, allows them to get control of their nerves and their aroused state and get back to a normal state of relaxation so they can enjoy their families and their home life.

Also, to reduce anger, cognitive strategies are useful. These are the mental strategies used to distract oneself -things like counting to ten slowly or seeking to understand the offender's reasons for performing some behavior that you don't like. These are things that many people know about, but they don't know how to use them. They need to know specifically how to short circuit their anger with these techniques. And they need to get feedback on their progress.

So, forward-looking businesses develop training procedures to teach people how to manage their anger. This kind of class helps them talk about what it is that provokes them in the first place, or the first time, and through their own thought control, learn how to deal with anger, not by flying off the handle, not by having a hot temper, not by conducting a negative monologue with themselves, but by regulating their physiological arousal, so they can think reasonably. Then they can learn assertive language to
explore solutions.

Besides simply feeling calmer, people who control their tempers, see other benefits, such as being listened to. Aren't we more likely to listen to people who sound reasonable? On the other hand, people who have hot tempers are often dismissed by others as "Oh well, he just has a hot temper," while those who gain the power in a company are seen as people who can solve problems in a reasonable manner. Credibility is very much tied to our notion of reasonableness. We believe and trust people who take time to sit and listen and who are able to ask objective questions to get at the problem. All of those assertive problem-solving techniques making people more reasonable, can be taught -and learned.

So, Brayton, if you conducted a five or six-week session, with 8-14 anger-prone people in industry, you would not only educate them about anger, but you would talk about their anger and you would, basically, teach them that anger is something which is learned, has been learned. And because it has been learned, like all other behaviors, it can be unlearned. Undisciplined and unleashed anger simply does not make for healthy work environments, healthy home environments, healthy community environments.

For instance, one of the things to teach the angry person is how to work out a new positive silent script for themselves. Suppose the angry person's silent monologue is, "Who the devil does he think he is? He can't do that to me. He wants to play it his way. Okay, I'll show him. He thinks I'm a pushover, I'll get even." Well, that kind of aggressive self-talk is going to arouse the individual's physiological sensations and is likely to drive the person out of control. There are ways of learning how to talk to ourselves in a more positive way. Like, "Take a deep breath, count to ten, this too will pass. I wonder what can be eating that fellow that he is so angry. He must be hurried. He must have had a problem." So, those are ways that we can teach people to calm themselves.

But, Brayton, some things need to be done by management that individual workers really can't do on their own. And some businesses are really beginning to turn around. Instead of just talking about anger in the workplace, we're beginning to hear managers ask questions like, "How can we get loyal workers?" How important is loyalty to you? How can we, as management, demonstrate loyalty? How can you, as workers, demonstrate loyalty?" So, I think those are good positive questions. That's what I mean by getting ahead of the problem by couching the problem in a positive direction. We want loyalty. What are the behaviors on the part of management and employees that will foster that kind of loyalty? As far as what management can do, I would suggest three or four things.

First of all, management needs to be open and honest with their people about changing market conditions. They need to be direct with their people when the bottom line is being affected and some people may be laid off. Their workers should not be kept in the dark. If we are never given any information, then rumors and fear grow. Without information, we have nothing to calm ourselves with and we become increasingly fearful. Workers report that even bad information or bad news seems more calming than no news at all. So, I would say to management, "Don't keep your people in the dark, be open and honest about your changing markets and how those changes affect their jobs."

Bowen:     Do you think that there are organizations or do you see any indications out there that suggest that managers are becoming more mindful of communication needs in times of adversity?

Bower:     Oh, yes, I'm convinced of it. There are some companies like Hewlett Packard and Intel, of course, who have taken the lead with this. I heard that Tandem's open communication policy called for doing just this, telling the workers where the company stood and good things happened from that.

But besides being open about the market scene, it's important for management to be fair and equal because people get very resentful when they see that the people at the top give themselves huge raises and, at the same time, they are laying off the workers in the trenches. In other words, don't cut budgets when a company's stock is skyrocketing. Also, departments need to be treated equally. If one department gets a raise, others should get a raise. For instance, in 1996, Intel gave $1,000 bonuses to everyone, to everyone. That's what I mean by being fair and equal.

And also, management needs to help workers maintain a work-life balance. Most families have both mother and father working and it is just a very difficult balancing act. To ease their stress, it's important for companies to offer diverse working environments, things like telecommuting, flexible schedules, part-time work. All of these possibilities send a message to the employee that the company cares about families and they recognize that people have a life outside of the company itself. For young parents, that recognition instills loyalty. Also, I believe companies can reduce hostility and anger and resentment and maintain some loyalty by offering professional development opportunities. Nobody likes to get stuck in a job that's going nowhere. So, offer job rotations, overseas posts, assignments in different departments. Hewlett Packard, I'm told, gives its own employees first crack at new jobs and opportunities to develop new products, new jobs, and new titles for themselves.

So, somehow or another, we have to foster a kind of esprit de corps, the kind of affiliation and loyalty that develops, for example, in a group of actors and technicians who get together to put on a play. As a person who has worked in and enjoyed theater all of my life, I liken an employee's loyalty to a project to a theater project where everybody pulls together and makes sure the curtain goes up. In theater, we all know that the bond is temporary and the energy is temporary, but nevertheless, because we have worked together as a team, our very important affiliation needs are met. And helping people meet their needs for positive interactions, breeds loyalty.

Also, I see that part of workplace anger comes from workers' feelings of isolation, of being off in the corner, not really knowing how or why they fit in, and that's when people start obsessing and ruminating about all the negative things in their environment. Negativity that grows in isolation can be stopped, in part, by teaching people how to really work in teams. It's not just saying, "Now, we're going to be a team," and everybody's off in their cubicles. I've worked with teams of 8-14 people where they learn crisp and clear communication skills that apply both to speaking and writing. To help people interact more positively on E-mail, I use a Train-of-Thought Method developed in my book Painless Public Speaking for working out some minor disagreements. I caution that all serious disagreements must be solved face to face. Using E-mail to settle disputes often backfires.

Bowen:     Another area that I would like us to explore is the interconnect in between fear and anger.

Bower:     Well, it's very complicated, Brayton. But, basically, the nervous system gets aroused because we see around us something that spells danger. It may be that we hear rumors or that we overhear gossiping, or that we're out of the loop. Whatever it is, it makes us feel that we're alone and that we might be dismissed from our job: Now, if those fears aren't talked about in an open and honest way, they will simply fester into negative thoughts, piling up one after the other until, at some point, the person becomes violent or engages in indirect, manipulate tactics. How many times have you heard someone say, "Gee, he (she) was such a nice quiet person. I never expected that to happen."? Well, that's very likely the person, who first became anxious, and then very fearful, all the while talking themselves into committing a violent act.

Bowen:     So, in essence, you're saying it's possible for people out of fear to talk themselves into a fit?

Bower:     That's right. Fear can lead to fits of inappropriate anger. We need to get rid of fear in the workplace. We must get rid of fear. People do not do their best when they are in an environment which is unreliable, where they don't know what to expect. I believe if we take definite steps to reduce fear in the workplace, and instill loyalty, we'll see less violence not only in our workplace, but also in our homes, on our roads, and in our community. The crucial question is: What are the positive behaviors in management and in workers that tell us, "Ah, this is a good place to work, a healthy place where I can do my work. Here I can solve problems in a timely manner. I can get my message across in clear, concise language. I can ask good questions that get at the root of misunderstanding. I can solve problems as they occur and I can stop many problems from ever occurring."?

We can teach people skills to stop their procrastinating and blaming behaviors. The outcast syndrome can be reduced. We know that healthy environments have people taking less sick leave than people in unhealthy environments, because people in healthy environments have skills to solve problems early on. They don't waste time gossiping and complaining, getting themselves all aroused. They don't work themselves up to fever pitch.

So, when we develop a training program that will help workers embrace optimism, where they are "can-do people" and where they can say to themselves, "I can hardly wait to get to the other side of this problem so I can look back and see how we did it together" I think we'll see that those are the attitudes and behaviors we want our workers to embrace.

Bowen:     So Sharon, to what extent do you think anger is a problem in the workplace today?

Bower:     From my practice, I know it's still there. But I want to emphasize that many companies are starting preventive programs that reinforce workers and instill loyalty. Nevertheless, the statistics from Time Magazine's, April 25, 1994 issue, are pretty startling and I can't believe that today, four years later, we're much better off in most of our companies today -- some perhaps, but not a lot. In 1994, Time Magazine reported more than 1000 Americans murdered on the job every year. Besides the murders, more than 2,000,000 employees had suffered physical attacks on the job each year and more than 6,000,000 were threatened in some other way. According to the threat assessment group in Newport Beach, these threats can run the gambit from anonymous love letters sneaked onto secretaries' desks, to feces smeared on restroom walls, to death threats sent to CEOs. So, our workplaces definitely weren't healthy in 1994 and the statistics may be worse today, simply because there is still uncertainty among a larger workforce, and the bottom line still pushes people to the limit in many, but not all, companies.

Bowen:     Interestingly enough, with the advent of technology and E-mail, is that yet another avenue for expression of anger?