Emotional rationality

In a management meeting recently I was part of a discussion about an ongoing and difficult problem we had been having with our teams. It was something I cared deeply about and when I shared my opinion during the discussion I made that quite clear.

I spoke about how important it was to find a solution to this problem, and the risks of inaction — I admitted that I was frustrated that we had been slow to act so far. I had real suggestions for solutions that I raised for discussion. One of the first things that was said in response was:

‘Let’s just take the emotion out of it’

I made the inference immediately. My suggestions were going to be ignored for now (and they were) and I was to stop expressing myself passionately as the fact that I cared deeply was clouding my judgement therefore rendering me irrelevant to the discussion and decision-making.

I was quiet, but I was also further frustrated. This statement had been made to encourage me to settle down, so that others could feel comfortable engaging with the details of the problem. The strategy worked, it was an easy way to shut me down.

And let me be quite clear. I was not particularly emotional.

On a scale of 1 to Michael Jordan crying face, I was a 3

When I shared this story with some others I began to understand that it was not an isolated incident that had happened only to me because of my particularly crippling case of hysteria. The pattern of discomfort with, and dismissiveness of, emotions and perceived emotional behavior is widespread, gendered and quite frankly a real shame, impoverishing us all.

An incorrect antonym

Emotional is not the opposite of rational …so let’s stop treating it like it is. Irrational is the opposite of rational, experiencing emotions is something else all together. In fact, experiencing emotions has long been accepted as a necessary part of effective decision making.

Since rationality is about reasoning well, and emotions are an important piece of information or evidence that contributes to reasoning.

One person’s expression of emotion doesn’t make them any less objective or more biased than someone else. Everybody is perspectival. Everybody’s emotions contribute to their views. Believing that yours do not, requires a real lack of insight.

So when we say ‘take the emotion out of it’ we are often saying — ‘don’t be so silly and immature’, ‘get a hold of yourself’ ‘let me know when you’re ready to talk with the adults’. It’s condescending and unnecessary, driven by the immaturity of the accuser, rather than the one experiencing emotions.

If we took the emotion out of it, would things improve?

To be ‘unemotional’ or ‘dispassionate’ generally means you don’t really care. Not caring is the wrong response to many important issues. If something is obstructing or compromising an important process, it is right to be frustrated. If you’re not frustrated, you have to ask yourself why not.

Put in that light, a request to ‘don’t be so emotional’ is (more accurately) a request to care less about the issue. Indeed, very often, disagreements about the level of emotions or the tone being used is really a disagreement about how big a deal the relevant issue is.

To dismiss someone as ‘being emotional’ assumes that not really caring is the right response. It asserts (without proving) that the uncaring approach is the best one and very often belittles important issues or problems (and the people that have appropriate feelings about them).

And there are obvious benefits to having a team who cares and gives emotional investment. This investment in an intrinsic motivator — we have all seen it. Invested teams have no trouble going above and beyond, applying their whole selves, working creatively and diligently to achieve their goals.

Gendered expectations strike again

Expression of emotions is one of many areas where people of different genders are held to different standards. Specifically, women are disproportionately punished for being assertive and expressing strongly held ideas.*

In women, emotion is seen as weakness, where in men it might be seen as strength. If a man had expressed himself as I had done, perhaps he would have been seen as taking a ‘strong and principled stand’.

If women are more emotional, it’s because they have been socialised to be so, and this is a big part of human flourishing (i.e. has ensured the survival of the human race by allowing secure attachment, strong personal bonds, and invaluable care work). But part of this division of labour means that their emotions are wanted (particularly by men) to be in service of supporting and nourishing, nurturing, kindness etc. When women experience and express emotions other than these, they are seen as unsuitable. Or emotion is meant to be confined to ‘the home’.

Sometimes if feels like women can’t win. If they’re not emotional enough they are seen as cold. If they are emotional, they are ‘irrational.’ We need to work at identifying and challenging those stereotypes when we see them in ourselves and others.

I’m not arguing here that we should all be equally encouraged to blow up, punch walls and mistreat others every time we have a strong feeling — only that we should not shy away from our strong feelings, and that we should not encourage others to either, no matter their gender. Instead harnessing them effectively and appropriately.

Leaders who can facilitate this will see significant benefit. Those who can not, will alienate individuals and diminish their teams potential.

The altar of objectivity

Many people wrongly think that the rational path has only one destination. In this way they use the argument that someone is being ‘irrational’ to completely dismiss their thinking, their beliefs and ultimately their conclusion. Any or all of which might be valid.

They hold up their own conclusion on the altar of objective rationality, Assuming anyone using objective thinking would reach the same outcome, but this is wrong.

In real life, two equally rational people can come to completely different conclusions, or points of view at any given time. In the complex world we live in, there are very few, ‘if A, then B’ situations. If we think this we way, we end up beating people up with accusations of irrationality, when in fact the only thing that is objectively clear is our failure to understand where they are coming from, and why they think or believe what they do.

Recent research has indicated that people make better decisions when they are invested in the outcome, rather than ‘impartial’ analysts. Those who are not invested in an outcome (including emotionally) are seen as more ‘objective’. But, in reality, they generally care less and this can lead them to be lazy, too accepting of risk, and under-appreciate nuance and complexity (e.g. issues of implementation)**

This cult of objectivity can lead to troubling conclusions. Would we suggest that only men can speak objectively about abortions because they don’t have them, and therefore their views are more relevant or useful.

This example exposes the dangerous nonsense of relying on objectivity alone.

A better response

Perhaps next time somebody says “let’s just take the emotion out of it”, I could reply “Why?”

Forcing someone to try and explain their comment, rather than taking it as a given, might expose the poor thinking behind it.

*https://www.vitalsmarts.com/resource/emotional-inequality/

**See Nassim Taleb’s book ‘Skin in the game’.