Reversing this trend in society is a daunting task. However, you can make your workplace a haven from, rather than an extension of, incivility and disrespect.

For our workplaces to thrive it’s imperative that you understand the principles that underlie hostility and take steps to move your workplace in the opposite direction. Creating climates of hearty appreciation, where employees and management work in optimal health and productivity, takes commitment and skill.

Our society doesn’t compile a comprehensive index of hostility levels. However, we can assess the rise of negativity and blame within our culture by scanning a list of assorted statistics.

Although workplaces are insulated from changes in society, they are not, ultimately, immune. Workplaces mirror the emotions of a world that has become more frightening, and embodies a less certain future.

Why should Americans feel anxious and irritable? The aggregate wealth of Americans is at an all-time high. However, the Social Health Index of the United States, a composite measure of 16 indices (infant morality, child abuse, teenage suicide and drug use, high school dropouts, poverty, homicides, affordable housing, and so on) has plummeted from a score of 73 in 1970, to 46 in 2001, a drop of 38 percent. In 2001 (the most current data), the score made its deepest decline since 1982, dropping eight out of a possible 100 points.

In schools, society, and workplaces, self-reported measures of exhaustion, economic insecurity, and rising stress result in a society that has become increasingly self-centered and uncivil. Whenever anxiety dominates a society, self-righteous indignation, irritability, and blame beckon with the false promise of justice and relief.

A study in April 22, 1996 edition of U.S. News & World Report stated that 88 percent of Americans feel that lack of respect at work is a serious problem and is getting worse. According to an Integra Realty Resources survey, 42 percent of respondents stated that yelling, verbal abuse, and “desk rage” occurred at their place of work.

Workplace incivility is not limited to the United States. In studies done in both the United Kingdom and Canada, workers have expressed concern about rudeness and lack of respect at work. More than 50 percent of respondents in a UK study claimed they had been stressed at work to the point of wanting to fight back. In a study conducted in Toronto, 33 percent of nurses said in the previous five days of work they had been on the receiving end of verbal abuse by patients, doctors, or staff. In a 2003 study of 126 Canadian white-collar workers, 25 percent reported witnessing incivility daily, and half said they were targets of incivility at least once per week.

Incivility at work is subtler than workplace violence, and is often described as “emotional violence,” “disrespect,” “personality conflicts,” “bullying,” and “rudeness.” As the costs and prevalence become more known, this issue receives increasing attention from researchers.

The majority of scholarly studies define workplace incivility as insidious, low-intensity hassles that violate norms for mutual respect. Surprisingly, these “micro-events” often have greater impact on stress than major, exceptional stressors.

Incivility includes behaviors such as: condescending and demeaning comments, overruling decisions without offering a reason, disrupting meetings, giving public reprimands, talking about others behind their back, giving others the silent treatment, ignoring people, rude comments, not giving credit, dirty looks, insulting others, and yelling.

Leaders aren’t exempt from boorishness. In a study cited in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, one-third of aggressive workplace behaviors were initiated by the supervisor—becoming what one consultant called the emerging “workplace pariah.”

According to Hafen, Frandsen, Kareen, and Hooker in The Health Effects of Attitudes, Emotions and Relationships (Benjamin Cummings, 2001), the most stressful interpersonal conflict at work occurs when an employee is in conflict with a supervisor and feels there is a lack of trust or that they are being treated unfairly or inconsiderately.

Customer Care Measurement and Consulting of Virginia found, in a national sampling, that 45 percent of respondents reported a serious consumer problem or complaint in the past year. Of that group, 70 percent said they experienced rage by the way the company handled the complaint. March Grainer, their chairman said, “Consumers today are more angry and hostile than they ever have been.” More customers are using profanity and seeking a measure of revenge.

Rudeness and irritability appear to be connected to unrelenting stress and time urgency. Chronic strains are the most commonly cited causes of stress. In a Canadian study the most frequently cited stressors included: overwork, trying to do too much at once, not having enough money, worries about children, time pressures, a change in job for the worse, a demotion; a cut in pay, management changes, marital problems, and budget cuts.

Jed Diamond, author of Irritable Men’s Syndrome, collected some remarkable data by posting a survey on the Men’s Health Website to which 6,000 males, ages 10 to 75, responded. The results give an alarming snapshot of how many males “often” or “almost always” feel gloomy, negative, and hopeless (51 percent); feel sarcastic (54 percent); feel exhausted (43 percent); have a desire to get away from it all (62 percent); possess a strong fear of failure (55 percent); become impatient (57 percent); or experience sleep problems (51 percent).

In a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of Americans reported feeling overworked and stressed due to company downsizing. In 1988, 22 percent of those polled worried about being laid off. According to an International Survey Research poll conducted 11 years later, that figure had doubled. In 1985, 16 percent of college freshman said they frequently felt overwhelmed by all they have to do. By 1999 the percentage jumped to 30 percent (Reuters, January 2000).

When increased stress levels are combined with time pressures, good people reach the limits of composure and civil behavior.

The Princeton Theology Seminary conducted a classic study in the 1970s on the impact of “time urgency” on behavior. Of the theology students who were told they were late to give their sermon on the Good Samaritan, only 10 percent stopped to assist a shabbily dressed “victim” in need of assistance. In the “low hurry” group, 63 percent offered help. Situations shape how we behave.

When workplace incivility and rudeness are tolerated rather than addressed, it sends a signal throughout the organization that results in more serious problems.

In the 1999 article “Tit for Tat,” published in the Academy of Management Review, researchers concluded that incivilities begin an “upwardspiraling process” of negative behaviors to increasingly serious levels. Workplace violence, the researchers concluded, is often the result of a culmination of “escalation patterns of negative interactions” between individuals.

In a University of North Carolina study, employees who were forced to work in negative climates reported that they got less done while fuming about it (50 percent); no longer did their best work (20 percent); became less committed (37 percent); thought about quitting (46 percent); or resigned (12 percent).

In a study by Cortina, Magley, Williams and Langhout appearing in The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (January, 2001), workers who reported feeling harassed and verbally abused had lower satisfaction score with supervisors, coworkers, and “the job in general.” They ceased their “good citizen” behaviors, had greater absenteeism and tardiness, and increased their retaliation and aggressive behaviors. They showed greater anxiety, depression, and productivity declines, and increased disability claims. Both women and men became more distressed as incivility became more frequent; however, men became more distressed than women.

In an article published in a 2005 issue of The Academy of Management Executive, by Christine Pearson and Christine Porath, one in eight people who see themselves as targets of incivility at work leave their places of employment and most do not report the reason for their departure. A few will steal; some will sabotage equipment; and most will tell their friends, family, and colleagues how poorly they’ve been treated.

Clearly, there is no rest for the rude. Even employees with less power retaliate—but in ways that are undetectable. Pearson and Porath found that low status employees retaliate by spoiling the offending individual’s reputation, spreading rumors, withholding information, covertly botching tasks, and delaying actions. Of those studied, 50 percent tell a more powerful colleague about the incivility they have suffered. Many tell peers and direct reports, who then search for their own ways to get even.

As levels of incivility rise, so do stress levels. The medical ailments that are linked with stress include arthritis, back problems, chronic bronchitis, stomach ulcers, heart disease, asthma, and migraines. No wonder absenteeism, tardiness, sick leave, and medical disability claims are increasing!

Time urgency, worries about children and finances, marital problems, exhaustion, and feeling overextended and anxious at work, translate into organizations in need of strategies for coping with anger, incivility, and the skills associated with maintaining composure.

Workplaces reflect the emotions of a world that has become more frightening and less secure, and they can play a significant role in the cure. They are more flexible and self-determined than government. They don’t need legislation to act. They are also one of the few places where large numbers of adults have access to new ideas and the opportunity to develop skills.

If you ask a group to identify their worst workplace traumas, incivility and unresolved conflict would likely be near, or at, the top of their lists. When hostility and mistrust contaminate interactions between people or departments, no aspect of work is unaffected: collaboration stops, problem-solving becomes ineffective and biased, information is distorted, conversations become malicious, and speculation is negative. When a workforce becomes obsessed with building invisible walls, opportunities for improvement and growth are abandoned. Self-oriented behavior becomes the norm.

Destructive conflict ends long-standing friendships, brilliant partnerships wither, and good people leave, hedging about their reasons. Paranoia replaces passion, cynicism replaces commitment, fears dull enthusiasm and pride. People lay low and dig in. When being visible is too big of a risk, creativity and entrepreneurship suffer. Judgment declines and the capacity for decision-making becomes impaired.

None of these costs of conflict are calculated off the bottom line. I have found this phenomenon to be true regardless of the setting, including universities, factories, banks, fire stations, marketing firms, mental health clinics, Fortune 500 companies, faith communities, machine shops, law firms, police departments, forensic prisons, and the IRS.

My first efforts at addressing workplace irritability and conflict were burdened by widely accepted beliefs about the nature of mistrust, camaraderie, and commitment. Early on I assumed that resolving conflict consisted of sorting out good guys from bad guys, and I imagined myself correcting and reprimanding the self-centered, pig-headed, and arrogant. I expected to find “innocents” in need of protection from the malicious. I assumed root causes were idiosyncratic and unique.

None of these expectations were useful. I learned that I had to let go of my assumptions and allow myself to be surprised by the actual underpinnings of mistrust and tension.

In reality, most conflicts are the results of predictable errors made by very conscientious, well-intentioned people. Surprisingly, and somewhat annoyingly, I found the same patterns in my own behavior. At first I was flabbergasted. Then I became amused by my human failings. Eventually, I felt grateful and relieved because I could look back over my life and see where making these mistakes had cost me moments of sanity, harmed relationships, and hurt my effectiveness in work. Now I consider these insights the most treasured of friends because they bring me unending opportunities to avoid negativity and anger by choosing how I think. They allow me unprecedented effectiveness, even with my crabbiest clients.

However, I discovered that most people were at the bottom of the same learning curve. Consequently, when conflict escalates, almost all organizations underreact. I’ve found the lag time between the onset of destructive conflict and a call for help ranges between 18 months and two years. Many leaders don’t know what to do, and hope that if they look the other way the conflict will burn itself out. Sometimes it appears their strategy has worked and the tension disappears. However, if you probe below the superficial calm, many times peace has been restored only because at least one valuable person has left—or has stayed on the job and withdrawn their passion and investment.

When conflict doesn’t burn out and stays hot and disruptive, leaders often ask for help reluctantly. In best-case scenarios, a competent consultant arrives and provides the skills the organization lacks. Often we complete assessments, teach, consult, tease, encourage, reassure, and challenge. Groups reach resolution, and normalcy is restored. However, roughly two years of difficult, painful times have passed, and people, profit, and productivity have suffered deeply.

I began to wonder if it was possible to help people avoid triggers to irritability and mistrust. Would people be interested in learning how to avoid workplace tension and blame? Was there a way to transfer my insights during periods of relative calm? I offered my first seminars.

The results were astonishing. I’ve been teaching seminars for 15 years to thousands of people across the United States and Europe. Participants repeatedly tell me how much they’ve learned, both immediately after keynotes and seminars, and, more importantly, years later.

Recently, a client described me as “An angel of enlightenment” two years after she heard me speak. Pretty strong, I thought, but then I realized we had worked together in Alaska, where people don’t get much sun.

I wish I could tell you that I came up with these ideas on a slow-moving train to the West Coast. In reality, everything in this book came from two memorable and rewarding decades of working alongside clients who trusted me with painful workplace disappointments, as well as feelings of betrayal, confusion, and fear. They trusted me with their fragile hope and together we succeeded, despite the mythology about difficult people, jerks, and malice.

The behaviors that actually do get us in trouble aren’t hard to observe because they are everywhere. When conflict escalates, most people are so busy scrutinizing other people’s behavior that they overlook their own. In fact, the real triggers to destructive conflict are so common that most of us consider the behaviors normal, maybe even clever.

The trigger of the downward spiral usually begins when individuals belittle someone else, in order to sidestep or minimize their own disappointing outcomes, to look superior, or to bond with others in their group. Sometimes slights are delivered with a mere roll of the eyes, a shrug, or an audible sigh. Blame and denigration are surprisingly tolerated, encouraged, excused, planned around, and explained away. In some workplaces the ability to make witty “cuts” toward a colleague or supervisor seems to be admired.

Most people believe that mean-spirited reactions are witty and justified. They believe biting retorts or feigned resignation to another person’s “stupidity” is useful and clever.

However, two years later, when everyone else has left the party, I’m down in the trenches with these otherwise clever people, helping them pick up the pieces of their relationships and tarnished careers. Well-manicured people with MBAs, astronomical IQs, and Ph.D.s make this mistake. How does this happen?

We are duped by the dazzle of contempt. Indignation and aggressive reactions seem like reasonable responses if you observe the situation for the short-term. And unfortunately, the negative repercussions of denigrating others—which you’ll read about in detail in Chapter Five—are hidden and delayed.

There’s another problem with cutting sarcasm and ridicule. The “payoffs” are so much fun. A good zinger draws a crowd and a guffaw. It’s aggressive, it’s adrenaline, and it’s a kick.

However, once you become aware of the invisible costs of contempt you’ll be very motivated to unplug from it. And there’s another incentive to forgo contempt for effectiveness: cooperation feels good. Respectful, validating behavior toward others is rewarding. It feeds our higher aspirations and inspires others to meet our expectations. Additionally, it allows us to feel proud of our behavior and feel more like honorable human beings.

If we fail to stem the tide of negativity, our collective future is frightening. Imagine a society that becomes more and more dominated by incivility, disrespect, negative assumptionism, and cynicism.

A lot of people are resigned to the increased hostility in our workplaces, families, schools, and society at large. Some fear it’s inevitable. Many people think that civility and respectful behavior toward others is passé, old-fashioned, or a remnant of a more innocent time that we’ll not see again. But no one wants hostility.

As you’ll see, blame, turf wars, and destructive conflict are not human nature. We don’t have to roll over and allow negativity to roll over us. We now understand how to turn the tide away from blame and aggression.

I’ve used the ideas you’ll read about in this book in more than 120 very tricky and very troubled situations where trust had been broken and individuals had lost hope. Many of my clients were surprised by how quickly we were able to restore collaboration. Conflict and blame can be transformed into respect and cooperation. These principles work.

You may believe that it’s possible for people to learn new ways of behaving—but do people maintain their gains?

A managing director in the United Kingdom (the equivalent of a CEO in the United States) told me that even though he’s received three promotions and changed offices multiple times, he still uses my materials and keeps them in the top drawer of his desk. When he told me this, it had been seven years since he heard me speak.

Dozens of times, when I’ve returned to a client site for a new project or to conduct another seminar, attendees from past years proudly lead me back to their work areas where handouts from the seminar are still hanging. It’s common for me to get e-mails from people years after I’ve been on-site to tell me how they still use the techniques. These ideas stick.

People are willing to try the techniques because they offer a less violent way of handling disagreements, disappointment, and delays. Competent responses to frustration improve self-confidence and enhance health. They resonate with our desires to be appreciated and to appreciate. They appeal to our better nature and demonstrate how we can make permanent gains in profitability and productivity. These habits build tenacious friendships and sweeten the workplace with warmth.

The only thing people have to let go of is that nasty, vindictive jolt of energy that comes from blame and self-righteous indignation. It’s a small loss compared to the ocean of positive energy that we can then embrace.

Let’s return to the idea that stress and time urgency are straining our ability to treat each other with respect. In my work I’ve found that frustration is the most common trigger of negative emotions, stress, and hostility at work.

Frustrations can be caused by the high drama that accompanies major project deadlines or the minutia of day-to-day activities. Aggravations come in the form of ongoing interruptions, missed sales targets, lost files, patient noncompliance, wrong parts, computer crashes, missed planes, stalled projects, faulty data, last-minute changes, misunderstandings, resource shortages, and so on.

Frustration is constant, and unless we get on top of it, the residue of each individual annoyance accrues and mounts. For instance, imagine you miss a critical deadline with a customer because your colleague, Sam, fails to provide a critical piece of data. You wince when you see that the terse e-mail you receive from your customer is copied to your boss. Your neck muscles tense, then you play a few rounds of e-mail damage control with Sam.

You stay late trying to make it right with your customer, appease your boss, and do damage control with your colleague. You leave work later than you planned and do a slow burn on the way home during the height of rush-hour traffic. You receive a cool reception and a cold meal from your disgruntled family. Your mood is lousy, you snap at the kids. You feel unappreciated and your evening is tanked. You wake up at 4 a.m. with stress-induced insomnia and arrive at work exhausted, carrying over the negativity of the previous day’s work.

Incidences of frustration are not discrete and separate. A poorly handled frustration in the morning sets you up physiologically for increasingly negative reactions when the next frustration hits. When people don’t handle aggravations well, they not only make the next one more difficult to manage, they damage relationships as they go, and their personal and professional networks begin to unravel. They no longer have access to warmth, laughter, goofiness, light-hearted chatter, compassionate advice, and friendly sounding boards. Life becomes harsh and barren.

Having a skill set that allows employees and leaders to maintain mood and momentum during periods of high stress and frustration is a critical life proficiency. Yet, for some reason, our ability to manage frustration is seldom addressed. I’ve asked hundreds of attendees if they’ve ever been in a seminar or read a book on handling frustration, and less than 1 percent of the audience responds in the affirmative. Yet, frustration is one of the most predictably disruptive aspects of modern life.

Charles Stroebel, M.D., in QR: The Quieting Reflex, reports that we suffer approximately 30 “heart hassles” a day. He describes these as moments of “irritating, frustrating, or distressing mini-crises.” If you multiple that by 365 days in a year, during the course of 70 years, it comes to more than 750,000 in a lifetime! Despite this frequency most people have paid little, if any, attention to how they respond to delays, disagreements, and disappointments, and the impact of their reactions on their relationships, health, and success. You can multiply that number by every employee, leader, client, customer, supplier, and family member. No wonder so many people report they’re at a breaking point at work!

It’s critical to be aware of how you react to frustration, because every one of your responses creates positive or negative repercussions that accumulate throughout your day and lifetime. However, if you’re like most (otherwise brilliant) people, you’ve never thought about the importance of your reactions when you hit a hurdle or delay.

Every time we face frustration, the way we think about it, not the event itself, determines how frustrated we feel and how effectively we respond. Most people are unaware that they continuously and unconsciously answer the question, “Why am I frustrated?”

You probably gravitate toward one or two of three basic reactions to this question, which begin to operate like reinforced circuitry in your mind.

The first response to frustration is reflexive and inflammatory, and it targets other people as the source of problems. This automatic response undermines efforts, cinches long-term failure, and increases hostility.

Think of a time when you’ve been in a highly charged, blaming culture at your place of work, family, faith community, country club, special interest group, or sports team. What words would you use to describe the atmosphere? Participants in seminars use words such as tense, frightening, hateful, irrational, destructive, foolish, wasteful, tragic, and stupid. Imagine the impact on performance!

Although these environments are loaded with adrenaline and cortisol, and appear to provide powerful advantages, in the next chapter you’ll discover the hefty, toxic price we pay every time we tap the energy of aggression in response to an aggravation.

The second reaction is a form of harsh self-criticism, and it typically begins to dominate thinking after the adrenaline response fades. This reaction turns the power of contempt inward. It causes individuals to withdraw, become depressed, and feel helpless or immobile. As you’ll see, it increases the risk factor for a variety of illnesses. Self-loathing results in the loss of energy and triggers feelings of lethargy and hopelessness. Participants describe these emotions as boring, stifling, oppressive, mind-numbing, and draining. Some work situations are so void of stimulation and energy that employees struggle with inertia, isolation, and depression.

Think of a time when you worked or lived in a culture dominated by apathy or boredom. How did it feel? How did it affect your productivity?

The third response to frustration is a reflective reaction, and when problems occur, this thinking pattern focuses on situations, not the people. It’s an analytical but warm reaction to frustration that makes climates hearty, and increases respect, influence, resiliency, productivity, and a sense of well-being. Reactions that support people as they tackle hard problems increase positive energy and sustain groups through thick and thin. In describing these climates, participants in seminars use words such as productive, fun, energizing, creative, wacky, surprising, respectful, and affirming. As you’ll see, these atmospheres are loaded with advantages.

In Chapter Three you’ll learn that not only does a positive orientation increase your effectiveness, it can prolong your life and decrease your risk for developing deadly diseases. In addition, you’ll look at data that suggests we are “hardwired” to be connected to others. For instance, cooperation stimulates the part of the brain that is associated with feelings of pleasure. Most of us do our best work when we’re tapped into the positive energy of camaraderie and accomplishment. This is what a software designer recently described as “being in the zone” with his work and colleagues.

If health, success, mood, loyal colleagues, and dedicated direct reports are high on your list of priorities, your choice will be easy. However, it takes commitment, courage, and skill to create and sustain positive energy in groups.

Our first responses to frustration were probably determined within our family of origin. When I poll people in seminars, roughly 10 percent say they were raised in families that had high standards and expectations but were consistently positive, warm, and supportive. The other remaining 90 percent place their families in the indifferent or hostile categories. I’m not surprised. Where and when do we have an opportunity to learn the skills that are necessary to create hearty groups that withstand increasing amounts of pressure, frustration, and exhaustion?

I think about these three emotions—hostility, helplessness, and hearty appreciation—on a continuum as shown in Figure 1 on page 32. At the left end are the negative emotions such as irritability, cynicism, and hostility. In the middle are depression and isolation—withdrawal from work and colleagues, a sense of helplessness and resignation. At the right end are vigor, camaraderie, respect, and the spirit of problem-solving.

There’s a vertical scale, that measures the amount of energy these emotions create. On this scale, energy is low at the bottom and high at the top. You can see two peaks of energy, at the negative and positive poles, and the loss of energy in middle.

HeartMath, a nonprofit research organization in Boulder Creek, California, uses biofeedback data to help their clients understand and manage their anger. Although our two organizations do very different work, we came to the same conclusion—there are two primary sources of energy: frustration and appreciation. On page 34 is an electrocardiogram (ECG) of electrical frequencies that were observed while monitoring biofeedback data. In the energy caused by frustration there are extreme variations in heart rhythms. The body is working hard, but it is not in synch. HeartMath calls this the rhythm incoherent. I think about it as a hardworking engine badly in need of a tune-up.

The heart variations in deep, sincere appreciation indicate coherence in the body and an alignment of energy linked to optimal performance. In this state, the cardiovascular, immune, hormonal, and nervous systems function efficiently. We experience greater mental clarity and creativity. We’ll refer to these two differences throughout the book.

When I work with high-conflict teams I think about these two variations because my goal is to help teams progress from the left to the right poles, as tension decreases and problems are resolved.

The energy at the left end is dramatic, loud, and manic. It’s a rush, but almost everyone hates the feelings of anger and hostility.

However, the middle emotion, indifference, is worse. Both the left and center emotions feel lousy, but at least at the left end people have enough energy to get out of bed. With indifference (which can morph into depression) people feel lousy and they lack energy. Consequently, I’ve learned that when I’m working with teams, I can’t simply reduce tension, resolve the problems, and walk away. I have to stay with the group until it is hooked by the energy of camaraderie and achievement. Once they get hooked on the buzz of collaboration and commitment my work is almost done. Once they’re reconnected, they solve the problems with relative ease. You might think it unlikely they would be able to sustain positive energy, but the other two options are so miserable that they are actually very careful about preserving their positive gains.

When I’m consulting with high-conflict groups, we document our agreements and create a fall-back plan if any party fails to uphold their commitments. In the 120 conflicts I’ve facilitated, only once have I had to return to a client site and reopen a conflict that I thought we had resolved.

People think I’m a wizard when former enemies turn into allies. In reality, I’ve tapped the innate, human desire to be connected. As you’ll see, people are aching for the energy of camaraderie and achievement. I just remove the barriers.

As you’ve been reading, you might be wondering which of the three categories you (or your team) might fall: negative, indifferent, or positive. Groups and individuals move to the left (hostility) and right (positive energy) depending on how stressed, exhausted, relaxed, or threatened they feel. However, most teams have a set point that’s a fairly good average of tone. If it’s not immediately obvious where you fall on this continuum as an individual, imagine where you would put your closest friends. It’s likely your orientation is similar.

If you or your team gets energy from hostility and contempt, blames people for problems, trusts only a few people (or select groups), views others as adversaries, believes that life is a race to get others before they get you, then your hostile, paranoid feelings and interactions with others will confirm your beliefs.

Similarly, if you and your colleagues believe that we are essentially alone, that life is stupid, that effort often goes unrewarded, and that withdrawal from other people and opportunities is inevitable, then your isolation and lack of recognition will confirm your beliefs.

On the other hand, if you or your group works hard to build and earn mutual respect, does what it takes to achieve established goals, gets a thrill from learning and solving problems, and reaches out to others in times of need, then the social capital created will confirm your collective beliefs.

Each of these three choices (hostility, depression, and appreciation), are validated by the people around you and by your combined life experiences. We unconsciously seek out people with similar orientations.

In most workplace lunchrooms you can watch people unwittingly sort themselves into groups with similar outlooks. There’s the cynical, hostile group, bonded with contempt for others (and others in their group when they’re not present). There’s usually a group looking fairly deflated and depressed—disconnected from what’s swirling about them. And then there’s a group that is warm and friendly. They’re reaching out, building networks, and gathering and giving information.

Although each group has a very different view of their workplace and world, each group validates the orientation and assumptions of its members. They’re all looking at the same external world. The difference in their perceptions can be traced back to differences in their thinking.

A director of a state agency who has worked under many different commissioners unknowingly summed up the difference between the first and third approach by telling me: “Some of our commissioners come out to field during a crisis, and their goal is to punish people. They immediately create climates of fear and tension. When these commissioners arrive, people scatter.

“Other commissioners seek to understand how the problem occurred. They express appreciation for people’s efforts and invite others to join in problem-solving. When they arrive, everyone pitches in to get at the root cause of the snafu. My direct reports love working for the latter, and hate working for the former.”

Outside of work, our worldviews are reinforced by the kind of job, entertainment, music, friends, and colleagues that we gravitate toward. There are so many opportunities to tap into these different perspectives that we unconsciously begin to narrow where we focus our attention.

If you scan radio and TV programs, you’ll find lots of broadcasts that cater to the reflexive, inflammatory energy of contempt. These programs inflame self-righteousness, hostility, and blame, which may draw a crowd but can’t solve anything. They’re only good for tearing down people and their efforts.

We can also find stations that provide listeners with a more reflective approach. In these broadcasts the producers seek to uncover the reasons underlying world and domestic events. These programs are driven by the possibility of resolving problems. They are dedicated to creating connections and solutions.

These differences reflect very different thinking patterns that we’ll look at closely in the following pages. When we don’t pay attention to how we think, our automatic responses often determine how we feel and behave. Our thinking patterns even determine what we experience. The following parable speaks well to this point.

The sage understood that we create our realities through subtle, ongoing choices that reinforce our worldviews. These choices lead us to the experiences that we unconsciously anticipated, and will find again.

After years of working with both successful and troubled teams, I realized that the vast majority of people are oblivious to the three responses I just described, and the important role those reactions play in shaping our lives. Most of us want to have positive experiences but, for reasons we’ll discuss in the next chapter, our reactions tend to be more hostile than warm when we are frustrated. This is especially true if we are reacting to frustrations without realizing that we have a choice.

Your automatic responses to frustration are the most important habit you bring to the table, in your workplace, family, and community. If you are a leader, in any aspect of your life, this is especially true.

Contempt is growing in our society and workplaces. However, because people in seminars jump at the opportunity to reduce their personal levels of hostility, I believe most individuals want this to change. All we need are the tools.