managing emotions at work
A salesperson with intense passion can convince someone to make a purchase. On the other hand, an angry manager can prompt an unfair review (Lamia, 1). In this discussion, you find yourself in a workplace situation where you are a team leader. You are asked to help your team understand and manage their emotions at work. You mention your challenges to manage emotions among your team and your boss tells you to read an article about it.
STEP 1: Read Lamia, Mary. December 31, 2010. Like it or not, emotions will drive the decisions you make today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201012/it-or-not-emotions-will-drive-the-decisions-you
STEP 2: SCENARIO: Assume you are a team leader and your team is having an emotional response to an upcoming deadline. The deadline energizes and motivates some people and paralyzes others with anxiety and fear that they can’t meet the challenge.
STEP 3: Respond to the discussion by sharing three things you can do as the manager to help your team MANAGE THEIR EMOTIONS and work together to meet the deadline.
Sample Solution
We're emotional beings. Humans find it difficult not to be emotional. While it is generally beneficial to be aware of and not conceal our emotions, there are times when we must control our emotions exceptionally carefully. This is especially true at work. Workplace emotional outbursts could be caused by work-related issues or tensions from our personal lives spilling over into our professional lives. At work, managing our emotions (especially negative ones) is generally considered as a sign of professionalism. Frustration, concern, wrath, dislike, and dissatisfaction are the most common unpleasant emotions experienced at work, according to a study.
Possibility based hypotheses of authority propose that there is no right or most effective way to lead a gathering, or association, because of the huge number of imperatives on a circumstance (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2019). Fiedler, in his Contingency Theory of Leadership (Fiedler, 1967), recommends that the viability of a gathering is reliant upon the administration styles of the pioneer and their favourability to the circumstance. A significant part of the hypothesis is laid out around the most un-favored associate scale (LPC). The LPC expects to evaluate a potential chiefs way to deal with an undertaking on a size of relationship inspired to task spurred, where the pioneer fits on the scale permits what is going on to be derived, and in this manner permits the distinguishing proof of reasonable pioneers for errands. The favourableness of the circumstance relies upon three attributes: pioneer part relations, the help and trust the pioneer as from the gathering; task structure, the lucidity of the errand to the pioneer; and positional power, the power the pioneer needs to evaluate a gatherings execution and give prizes and disciplines (Fiedler, 1967). In the event that the pioneers approach matches what is expected from going on, achievement is anticipated for the gathering. Fiedler's possibility model offers an exceptionally severe categorisation of initiative, obviously characterizing which circumstances endlessly won't bring about progress for a likely pioneer. At the senior administration level of a hierarchal construction inside an association the hypothesis can be applied unreservedly, right off the bat because of the straightforwardness at which people can be supplanted in the event that their LPC score doesn't match that expected of the circumstance (Pettinger, 2007). Besides, and in particular, is to guarantee that the senior administration are ideally suited to effectively lead the association. Nonetheless, further down the ordered progression Fielder's possibility hypothesis starts to hold substantially less significance, it becomes unreasonable according to an authoritative viewpoint because of the quantity of individuals at this degree of administration. The operations of coordinating the pioneer with their most un-favored colleague I