You are on page 1of 4

Printable Pages on Writing.

Com
exclusively sponsored by:
Facsimile.Com
http://www.Facsimile.Com/

Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy


by: Rory Ridley-Duff (roryridleyduff@Writing.Com)

Life is an endless process of probing and searching for satisfying relationships for the purpose of
economic and social gain. We constantly try to seduce each other for different reasons. Beyond
seduction to satisfy our sexual desires, there are employers seducing employees (and vice versa),
salespeople seducing customers, consultants seducing clients, advertisers seducing consumers, writers
seducing readers, musicians seducing listeners, and academics, scientists, religious leaders and
politicians presenting seductive versions of "the truth".

In marriage, families and committed partnerships, we display our emotions more freely than at work.
Learning to cope with them often leads to the most durable and meaningful relationships in our lives. Yet,
at work, an "inappropriate" display of emotion can land a person in deep trouble, even result in their
sacking or trigger widespread upheaval in the office. It has made me question whether our attitude to
emotions is actually helping business or hurting it.

My own interest is the way emotion and intimacy drives the way we govern each other and to organise
ourselves into social groups. By looking at conversations, it is possible to discover that productive
relationships, generally, are far more equitable than we realise. Only when one party wants to punish the
other do relationships change dramatically. When hostility is triggered, one party cuts off or alters the
way they communicate. Sometimes they start shaping situations so they can hurt those who they think
have hurt them. When this happens, we discover how power is organised, because one party is usually
able to punish "the other" more completely and effectively than the other way around.

The desire to punish is rooted in emotional hurt. In our closest relationships we learn many things: how
to let others win as a way of developing their confidence; how to win sometimes so that others learn to
deal with the emotions aroused by losing. Learning to establish a balance between winning and losing,
and teaching others how to cope with winning and losing, is an experience that is quite different from the
"win, win, win" mentality that now pervades our society.

Winning is over-rated. Management researchers have long noted the cycle of rapid business success
followed by rapid business failure. The same might be asserted about military 'success' in places like
Vietnam and Iraq. Quick success breeds overconfidence and arrogance. Moreover, when winning and
the pursuit of ideological supremacy becomes more important than supporting the development of
human life, we start to undermine the very people who contribute to our own survival. Sometimes we
mindlessly hurt without pause to consider the long-term consequences, then compound the problems by
getting angry when others react to our own insensitivity. Forgiveness is a quality much needed, but rarely
found, in governmental thinking, despite the competitive advantage to be gained through its adoption
(Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005).

Failure is not a blot on our character, because in the process we learn to reflect and develop new ways
of thinking. In personal and social environments, failure is the catalyst for profound learning out of which
develops self-awareness and tolerance. When those who fail are sacked rather than supported, we
marginalize the very people who are in the midst of learning the most and who potentially have the most
to contribute to the future. It is this realisation that has fuelled an interest in the link between no blame'
management cultures and commercial success.

Interest in emotion was fuelled by the runaway success of Daniel Goleman's book Emotional Intelligence
(Goleman, 1995) . As is the case with many popular psychology books, Goleman tends to view emotion
as a product of genetic inheritance and upbringing. Branches of academia, such as cognitive (Aronson,
2003) and evolutionary psychology (Buss, 1994), also accept this presumption to understand
personality'.

In the social sciences (including business studies) the seminal works on emotion take a different view. In
Fineman's writings (2000), for example, emotion is seen as a outcome of group life, something that is
triggered by changes in our social status and relationships that create 'cognitive dissonance' (Festinger,
1957). This theme has been picked up by some psychiatrists, such as William Glasser in Choice Theory.
Glasser (1998) views emotional disturbances as 'normal in the circumstances' when a person's
relationship aspirations are seriously disrupted by real world events. By viewing emotion as 'normal', his
patients are taught to control their choices and accept those made by others as outside their control (if
they seriously wish to maintain rather than destroy their relationships).

This focus on relationship aspirations is key in management research into emotion. When people are
asked to talk about emotions at work, they do not unless prompted by researchers or managers talk
about "job satisfaction" or a desire for "self-fulfilment". Instead they talk about their relationships with
work colleagues, family and friends. What matters, therefore, is the situation in the here and now, not
what happened 10 or 20 years ago. The past may influence the way a person understands and deals
with the present, but the problem to be solved the feelings that are being experienced are in the present
situation, not the past, and not simply a product of personality.

Arlene Hochschild (1998) has documented another feature of emotional life at work - the way we are
encouraged to adopt emotions when we interact with work colleagues, managers, clients, customers and
suppliers. Her concepts link back to Daniel Goleman but have a different slant. What Goleman calls
emotional intelligence' Hochschild regards as emotional labour'. Unlike Goleman, who argues that
emotional intelligence is beneficial to us as human beings, Hochschild brings out another aspect:
constantly pretending or withholding emotions undermines our sense of self, affects our physical health
and undermines our capacity to act morally.

In my own research (Ridley-Duff, 2005), I show how emotional skills however we label them - take
individuals into the heart of complex social networks. Whether in business or politics, in love triangles or
large families, we are drawn to those who trigger positive emotions in us, and we consider them more
desirable and trustworthy. People find themselves, whether by their own design, or the manoeuvrings of
others, embedded in complex and intimate relationships. The way people handle this is an important
dimension of leadership but it is rarely discussed as a management topic.

My own contribution, therefore, was to demonstrate scientifically how company governance practices,
and the development of social structures at work, are partly rooted in the way we handle intimacy and
emotionality. Courtship rituals, and our interests as parents, influence the development of workplace
hierarchies. They have an impact that compares to market-forces, legal regulations and company rules.

Another couple who confront the issue of intimacy are Andrew and Nada Kakabadse (Kakabadse and
Kakabadse, 2004). They found that intimacy at work is a common experience, and the benefits are
astonishingly enduring, often lasting a life-time. After my own study into workplace culture, I returned to
their work and the stories had an even more profound effect on me. The insights that developed in
second reading take form and expression in my second book (Ridley-Duff, 2007). In their conclusions,
the Kakabadses talk of a need for people at work, particularly managers, to develop greater sensitivity so
they can handle intimacy and emotionality more effectively. This recommendation was underpinned by a
survey finding that only 11% of people at work think relationship issues are handled well, and that only
2% believe that policy-based approaches to sexual conflict make a positive contribution.

The recent legislative attempts to bring about improvements in behaviour by making employers
responsible for equality have the potential in my eyes to make matters worse. Does it make sense to
make managers legally responsible for preventing the accidental upset of people at work? A person who
accidentally upsets another can now be sacked if it can be shown that the effect of their behaviour was
intimidating (even if unintended). Managers can be found guilty of failing to prevent a hostile environment
if they do not remove a person who accidentally causes another distress. A person's motive may be to
show care for another person or to debate discrimination issues affecting their own workplace, or just a
straightforward positive response to the other's obvious interest. The result of legislative change is that
we are developing a culture that frustrates the pursuit of equality by outlawing the emotionality of
intimacy and debate. In effect, we are knowingly or unknowingly making democracy illegal.

At the same time, our world is increasingly driven by intolerance. In both US and UK politics, we see
world leaders ordering troops into Iraq justified, not on the basis of credible evidence of a threat to our
nation, but to assuage the fears and suspicions of our leaders. Riots erupt the world over after
publication of a blasphemous cartoon just as democracy' is established in Iraq (Williams and Born,
2006). In the UK, members of religious minorities fear prosecution for incitement to terrorism (BBC,
2004) for publicly debating how to respond to their own government bombing family members in other
countries, even when a majority of citizens oppose the war (Walker, 2007). We see Labour Party
stewards ejecting an old-age pensioner for holding a political leader to account at a democratic'
conference and then using anti-terror laws to prevent his further participation (BBC, 2005). At work, the
result of tightening up' sexual discrimination legislation is that people can be demoted or sacked for
trying to debate issues of sex discrimination, including something as trivial as choosing not to wear a tie
(Channel Five, 2005).

Emotions, our own and others, have had a raw deal in the credibility stakes in both personal and
professional worlds for around 200 years. Science itself is beginning to establish how emotions underpin
our intelligence. We have an innate ability to be sensitive, and this sensitivity allows us to discovers ways
of thinking that help us to survive. While the current wave of intolerance is rooted in a global fear about
our collective survival, the fear is rational even if the reactions to it are not. As a social scientist, I do not
believe anyone can be completely objective. Even maths often cited as the purest of sciences is a
symbolic language. It is an invention by human beings to represent the world as mathematicians see it.
The bias lies not in its inability to precisely depict what is observed (it does this rather well) but in the
purposes behind particular observations and the way we report them. The best way forward, therefore, is
not just to count and measure occurences of emotion. Instead, we need to interpret the causes, meaning
and impacts and learn to make measured responses in the best traditions of a society that claims to
assert itself as a democracy.

It is timely to consider how we will benefit by listening to our own and others' emotions as well as their
words. This is a time to develop our capacity for tolerance and sensitivity. Secondly, I argue that during
conflict, the priority is to understand the source of emotion - both in ourselves and others rather than
stamp it out through authoritarian behaviour, discipline, punishment and exclusion. If we fail to embrace
the challenge of understanding our feelings, we adopt alternative behaviours that increase intolerance,
anger and violence. The result, as with every intolerant society in history, is the growth of tyranny and the
death of democracy.

If reprinting this article, please include the following citation:

Based on Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on


Organisation Behaviour, Bracknell: Men's Hour Books, Introduction (pp. vi-xi).

References

Aronson, E. (2003) The Social Animal, Ninth Edition , New York: Worth Publishers.

BBC (2004), "Muslim fear amid terror arrests", BBC News, 9th August 2004,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3549050.stm

BBC (2005), "Blair apology to hecklers", BBC News, 3rd October 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4292918.stm

Buss, D. (1994) The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, New York: Basic Books.

Clutterbuck, D., Megginson, D (2005) Making coaching work: Creating a coaching culture, London,
CIPD.

Channel Five (2005) "What are Men For?", Don't Get Me Started, 23 rd August 2005. Scripted and
presented by Michael Buerk.

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fineman, S (ed) (2000) Emotion in Organizations, 2nd edn, Sage Publications.

Glasser, W. (1998) Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom, Harper Perennial.

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence, London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hochschild, A. R. (1998) "Sociology of emotion as a way of seeing" in G. Bendelow and S. J. Williams


(eds) Emotions in Social Life, London: Routelege.

Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. (2004) Intimacy: International Survey of the Sex Lives of People at Work,
Palgrave.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2005) Communitarian Perspectives on Corporate Governance, Sheffield Hallam


University.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation


Behaviour, Bracknell: Men's Hour Books.

Walker, P. (2007) "60% think Iraq war is wrong, poll shows", Guardian.co.uk, 20th March 2007,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/20/iraq.iraq

Williams, B. & Born, M. (2006), "Islam cartoon sparks worldwide protests", Daily Mail, 3rd February 2006,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id... & in_page_id=1770

© Copyright 2008 Rory Ridley-Duff (UN: roryridleyduff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Rory Ridley-Duff has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.

This printed copy is for your personal use only. Reproduction of this work in any other form is not allowed and does violate its copyright.

You might also like