 |
|
|
|||||
Two in five Americans have fought with a family member about politics, according to a 2024 study by the American Psychiatric Association. One in five have become estranged over controversial issues, and the same percentage has blocked a family member on social media or skipped a family event due to disagreements. Difficulty working through conflict with those close to us can cause irreparable harm to families and relationships. Whats more, the inability to heal these relationships can be detrimental to physical and emotional well-being, and even longevity. Healing relationships often involve forgivenessand sometimes we have the ability to truly reconcile. But as a professor and licensed professional counselor who researches forgiveness, I believe the process is often misunderstood. In my 2021 book, Practicing Forgiveness: A Path Toward Healing, I talk about how we often feel pressure to forgive and that forgiveness can feel like a moral mandate. Consider 18th-century poet Alexander Popes famous phrase: To err is human; to forgive, divineas though doing so makes us better people. The reality is that reconciling a relationship is not just difficult, but sometimes inadvisable or dangerous, especially in cases involving harm or trauma. I often remind people that forgiveness does not have to mean a reconciliation. At its core, forgiveness is internal: a way of laying down ill will and our emotional burden, so we can heal. It should be seen as a separate process from reconciliation, and deciding whether to renegotiate a relationship. But either form of forgiveness is difficultand here may be some insights as to why. Forgiveness, karma, and revenge In 2025, I conducted a study with my colleagues Alex Hodges and Jason Vannest to explore emotions people may experience around forgiveness, and how those emotions differ from when they experience karma or revenge. We defined forgiveness as relinquishing feelings of ill will toward someone who engaged in a harmful action or behavior toward you. Karma refers to a situation where someone who wronged you got what they deserved without any action from you. Revenge, on the other hand, happens when you retaliate. First, we prompted participants to share memories of three events related to offering forgiveness, witnessing karma and taking revenge. After sharing each event, they completed a questionnaire indicating what emotions they experienced as they retold their story. We found that most people say they aspire to forgive the person who hurt them. To be specific, participants were about 1.5 times more likely to desire forgiveness than karma or revenge. Most admitted, though, that karma made them happier than offering forgiveness. Working toward forgiveness tended to make people sad and anxious. In fact, participants were about 1.5 times more likely to experience sadness during forgiveness than during karma or revenge. Pursuing forgiveness was more stressful, and harder work, because it forces people to confront feelings that may often be perceived as negative, such as stress, anger, or sadness. Two different processes Forgiveness is also confusing, thanks to the way it is typically conflated with reconciliation. Forgiveness researchers tie reconciliation to interpersonal forgiveness, in which the relationship is renegotiated or even healed. However, at times, reconciliation should not occurperhaps due to a toxic or unsafe relationship. Other times, it simply cannot occur, such as when the offender has died or is a stranger. But not all forgiveness depends on whether a broken relationship has been repaired. Even when reconciliation is impossible, we can still relinquish feelings of ill will toward an offender, engaging in intrapersonal forgiveness. Not all forgiveness has to involve renegotiating a relationship with the person who hurt you. I used to practice counseling in a hospitals adolescent unit, in which all the teens I worked with were considered a danger to themselves or others. Many of them had suffered abuse. When I pictured what success could look like for them, I hoped that, in adulthood, my clients would not be focused on their past traumathat they could experience safety, health, belonging, and peace. Most often, such an outcome was not dependent upon reconciling with the offender. In fact, reconciliation was often ill-advised, especially if offenders had not expressed remorse or commitment to any type of meaningful change. Even if they had, there are times when the victim chooses not to renegotiate the relationship, especially when working through trauma. Still, working toward intrapersonal forgiveness could help some of these young people begin each day without the burden of trauma, anger, and fear. In effect, the client could say, What I wanted from this person I did not get, and I no longer expect it. Removing expectations from people by identifying that we are not likely to get what we want can ease the burden of past transgressions. Eventually, you decide whether to continue to expend the emotional energy it takes to stay angry with someone. Relinquishing feelings of ill will toward someone who has caused you harm can be difficult. It may require patience, time, and hard work. When we recognize that we are not going to get what we wanted from someonetrust, safety, loveit can feel a lot like grief. Someone may pass through the same stages, including denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, before they can accept and forgive within themselves, without the burden of reconciliation. Taking stock With this in mind, I offer four steps to evaluate where you are on your forgiveness journey. A simple tool I developed, the Forgiveness Reconciliation Inventory, looks at each of these steps in more depth. Talk to someone. You can talk to a friend, mentor, counselor, grandmasomeone you trust. Talking makes the unmentionable mentionable. It can reduce pain and help you gain perspective on the person or event that left you hurt. Examine if reconciliation is beneficial. Sometimes there are benefits to reconciliation. Broken relationships can be heald, and even strengthened. This is especially more likely when the offender expresses remorse and changes behaviorsomething the victim has no control over. In some cases, however, there are no benefits, or the benefits are outweighed by the offenders lack of remorse and change. In this case, you might have to come to terms with processing an emotionalor even tangibledebt that will not be repaid. Consider your feelings toward the offender, the benefits and consequences of reconciliation, and whether theyve shown any remorse and change. If you want to forgive them, determine whether it will be interpersonaltalking to them and trying to renegotiate the relationshipor intrapersonalin which you reconcile your feelings and expectations within yourself. Either way, forgiveness comes when we relinquish feelings of ill will toward another. Richard Balkin is a distinguished professor of counselor education at the University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Meetings are breeding grounds for three highly toxic power moves: AMPLIFICATION: The boss speaks, and suddenly its gospel. People start self-censoring, sugarcoating bad news, and swallowing their dissenting opinions. INCOMPETENCE: When a leader cant run a meeting, it drains the rooms energy. People leave annoyed and wondering why they bothered to show up. JERK BEHAVIOR: Bullies, interrupters, and blowhards hijack the room. Collaboration isnt just stifledits publicly executed. These power moves reduce meetings to lifeless, performative rituals where the people who hold the most power call the shots and everyone else plays defense. But it doesnt have to be this way. Design your meetings to defang these power moves, and youll create a space where people speak up, push back, and bring bolder and better ideas to the table. Amplification: When Power Overpowers Jade Rubick, former VP of engineering at New Relic, remembers the exact moment he became brilliant. It wasnt because of a sudden surge in IQ or creativity. It was his promotion to senior director, accompanied by a glowing speech in front of his peers. Overnight, everything changed. In meetings, people went out of their way to praise his ideas. Person after person would go out of their way to say why my suggestion was the right approach, Rubick recalls. All of a sudden, my ideas were BRILLIANTAll of a sudden, I was a different person, a Very Important Person. What Rubick experienced was a classic case of what Professor Adam Galinsky calls amplification: the invisible megaphone leaders inherit when they step into a position of power. A passing comment becomes a marching order. An offhand suggestion rockets to the top of the teams priority list. A poorly timed yawn during your presentation plunges you into a spiral of self-doubt: They hate this. They hate me. Instead of focusing on the work, people start decoding every glance, sigh, or eyebrow twitch as part of a high-stakes game of corporate charades. When amplification takes over meetings, people start filtering their ideas or stop sharing them altogether. They nod along like bobble-heads and, before long, the room turns into an echo chamberparrots squawking back the leaders words instead of expressing their own. Heres how you can address it. 1. Dial down the talking Research shows that high-performing teams share airtime more equally. In a perfect world, leaders would recognize that and adjust accordingly. But self-awareness isnt always their strong suit. And the more power they hold, the less likely anyone is to tell them theyre hogging the mic. If youre dealing with a leader who cant stop steamrolling the room, there are ways to take back the room. At one organization, team members came up with a creative solution: a miniature stuffed horse. If someone is too long-winded, anyone can toss the horse in front of that person as a signal to stop beating a dead horse, one team member explained. Now, chucking stuffed animals at your coworkersespecially the powerful onesis probably a career-limiting move. But the spirit of the idea is sound: Find a way to flag the airtime hogs. Fortunately, technology offers a safer option. Today, tools like Fireflies.AI and Equal track metrics like talk-to-listen ratios and flag monologues. Some even analyze gender dynamics, surfacing when women and nonbinary participants are getting drowned out. Another way to stop people from hijacking the conversation is to get them to speak last. At Pixar, cofounder Ed Catmull understood the risks of speaking first. In brainstorming meetings, he deliberately held back his input until the end so his team could explore ideas without the gravitational pull of his amplified words. Catmull understood what many leaders overlook: New ideas are fragile. As he put it, they need protection from getting pancaked by heavy-handed forces like a leaders amplification. Thats also why Catmull struck a deal with Steve Jobs when Jobs was CEO of Pixar. They agreed that Jobs would sit out of Pixars legendary Braintrust meeting, where senior creatives critiqued early-stage films. As Catmull put it, Jobss bigger-than-life presence would make it harder to be candid. 2. Don’t amplify ambiguity Weve all been there: Your boss drops a cryptic meeting invite on your calendar and your brain immediately spirals. Am I in trouble? Is this about that thing I said in Slack? Am I getting fired? Amplification kicks in, and that vague invite snowballs into employees worst-case scenarios. This kind of ambiguity is the second type of communication that Adam Galinsky, a social psychologist and Columbia business school professor, says is prone to amplification. When leaders say or do something vague, employees fill in the blanksoften with their own worst fears. Galinskys advice for leaders prone to amplification is simple: Be transparent. A quick message like Hey, I need to see you laterits nothing to worry about can save your team from hours of anxiety. And if your calendar is public, dont leave room for speculation. Trust me, your team is watching your calendar if its public, and theyre overanalyzing every entry, especially the vague ones. Dont give their imaginations room to fill in the blanks. Because theyll assume theyre the blanks. Incompetence: The Accidental Power Move Some of the most destructive power moves arent malicious. Theyre the result of sheer incompetence, which is amplified by a leaders position of power. Its like handing a megaphone to someone who doesnt know how to use it. They shout into the wrong end, and the whole room winces at the ear-splitting feedback. Leaders who dont know how to effectively design and deploy meetings end up scheduling them for every problem, real or imagined. According to Neil Vyner, VP of growth and go-to-market at Worklytics, just 5% of employees schedule 60% of all meetings. These serial schedulers tend to be the most powerful people in the company (or their assistants acting on their behalf). New managers are some of the worst offenders. Theyre promoted because they excelled in their previous roles, not because they know how to facilitate productive discussions, navigate hairy decisions, or avoid letting their new dinosaur tail knock over their teams ideas. Theyre handed a packed calendar of high-stakes meetings and a megaphone, but no user manual. Meanwhile, their employees watch their boss bumble through bad meetings and assume, Well, I guess this is how its done. Inefficiency gets institutionalized, and before long, the entire team is trapped in a cycle of toxic meeting mediocrity. Or worse, full-blown dysfunction. 1. One-on-ones aren’t for you, boss Incompetent managers often treat one-on-ones as their meetinga chance todownload updates, deliver monologues, or check a box. But thats not how they should be treated. As Ben Horowitz puts it, The key to a good one-on-one meeting is the understanding that it is the employees meeting rather than the managers meeting. A leaders job is to create space for whatever employees need to move their work forward, whether its advice, a pitch, or just a chance to vent. According to research by Gallup, just one meaningful one-on-one meeting each week does more to build high-performance relationships than any other leadership activityand meetings as short as 15 minutes are enough to make a difference. 2. Stop hosting meetings just to spoon-feed the boss One of the most commonand costlysigns of incompetence is the boss briefing: a meeting held not to collaborate or solve problems, but to spoon-feed status updates to a leader who cant be bothered to check the project tracker. If you just need updates from your team, dont drag them into a hostage situation. Ask for a written summary or a short video update instead. The same goes for updates that youre pushing out to your team. Skip the meeting and record a quick video instead. Film it from a real-life backdrop: a home office with kids barging in, or post-run and still dripping with sweat. That kind of raw, unfiltered communication hits differently. It satisfies the TikTok generations appetite for authenticity and transparency. Jerk Behavior: When the Boss Is the Bully Unlike amplification or incompetence, jerk behavior isnt an accidental or inevitable side effect of holding a position of power. Its a deliberate abuse of it. And unfortunately, its disturbingly common. Research by Simon Croom, a professor at the University of San Diego, found that 12 percent of corporate senior leaders exhibit psychopathic traits, up to twelve times the rate found in the general population. Yikes. Jerk behaviorinterrupting, nitpicking, steamrolling, humiliating, or straight-up bullyingsucks the oxygen out of the meeting. And the damage doesnt stay neatly contained at the top. It spreads. Employees who cant push back against a jerk boss dont just absorb the blow, they pass it along to the next person in line. Sure enough, supervisors who report to abusive bosses are more likely to engage in abusive behavior themselves. 1.Shine a light on jerk behavior Sometimes, the fastest way to shut down jerk behavior is to bring it into the light. Set up an anonymous feedback form so employees can report toxic behavior without fearing retaliation. But thats just step one. Dont let feedback languish in a forgotten Google Doc. Act on it. Prove youre serious about creating a jerk-free culture. Because doing nothing is worse than not asking for feedback in the first place. It sends a clear message: Were going to pretend that your voice matters, but it really doesnt. And thats just another form of jerk behavior. 2. When all else fails, protect yourself Some jerks are beyond redemption. If youre stuck with one of these un-fixable types, your best move is self-preservation. Dont let their toxicity take up space in your head. Or on your calendar. Start by limiting your exposure to them. Avoid meetings with them if you can. If thats not an option, move the conversation to email or chat to contain their toxicity behind a digital firewall. This will also generate a handy digital paper trail if you need to file a formal report with HR. And whatever you do, dont feed the beast. Jerks thrive on attention, so starve them of yours. Keep your responses short, flat, and factual. The less entertaining you are as a target, the faster theyll lose interest. Your goal isnt to win them over. Its to bore them into submission. Excerpted from Your Best Meeting Ever: 7 Principles for Designing Meetings That Get Things Done. Copyright 2026, Rebecca Hinds. Reproduced by permission of Simon Element, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. All rights reserved
Category:
E-Commerce
A decade ago, when Claire Burgi moved to New York City, she decided to cut meat out of her diet. The 33-year-old actor and audiobook narrator, who lives in Queens, grew up in California, where shed seen the effects of climate change firsthand. She knew that meat consumption was a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions and that vegetarianism was a way to help conserve resources and reduce pollution. When I was young, it rained a lot, she says. Now, it rains much less. All the fires are astoundingly horrific. The December 2017 Thomas wildfire burned more than 280,000 acres in and around Burgis hometown of Ventura, just north of Los Angeles. I just didnt want to be contributing to anything that was causing that, Burgi says. She recently made another major decision to reduce her eco-footprint: not to use generative AI. Shes been shocked, she says, by research showing how much electricity that the underlying technology generative AI tools like ChatGPT use, and how much this is raising carbon emissions. One paper published in 2023 predicted that AI-related infrastructure would soon consume six times more water than is used in Denmark yearly. Another piece of research from 2024 showed that a request made through ChatGPT consumes 10 times the electricity of a Google search. They make me think of Frankenstein, Burgi says of AI models. There have been times in history, she says, when humans have acted without any idea of what the consequences would be, because it was convenient for us in that moment. Right now, she adds, thats whats happening with AI. In general, women have been slower to adopt AI use than men. This gender gap has been well documented over the last few years. According to Harvard Business School associate professor Rembrand Koningwho synthesized data from 18 studies covering more than 140,000 individuals across the worldwomen are about 20% less likely than men to directly engage with this new technology. Whats less clearly established is the precise reason why. But when it comes to environmentally motivated reasons, Burgi isnt alone. “Environmental angst” The reasons for this gender gap vary. Some studies indicate that women are less likely to trust that gen AI providers will keep their data secure. Other research shows that women are more fearful of a loss of control that comes with these technologieswhich is, for example, reflected in their more muted enthusiasm for driverless cars. Studies have also shown that women are more likely to avoid AI because of fears that it could steal their job, and still other studies have found that women are more concerned than men about the ethical implications of AI use. But a growing body of research also indicates that a sizable chunk of the gap might be attributable to the type of environmental angst that people like Burgi feel. Earlier this month, academics at the University of Oxford published a paper showing that the reasons for the adoption gap are manifold, but that environmental concerns certainly play a significant part. The research, titled Women Worry, Men Adopt: How Gendered Perceptions Shape the Use of Generative AI, draws on survey responses from 8,000 individuals in 2023 and 2024 across the U.K. It established that 14.7% of women and 20% of men reported using gen AI tools frequentlyat least once a weekin a personal context. This corresponds to a gap of just over 5 percentage points. But the gap widens significantly in subsets of respondents who admit to being concerned about environmental and mental health risks. Among those who say they are worried about the climate, the gender gap is 9.3 percentage points; for those concerned about the mental health impact of these new technologies, it widens to 16.8 percentage points. Among older users of artificial intelligence, the gender gap for concerns about AIs climate effect is particularly wide: almost 18 percentage points. These findings echo previous research showing that women are more likely to display eco-anxiety than mena phrase thats been coined to refer to the mental health distress caused by climate change, ranging from concerns about the impact of extreme weather to the future of biodiversity. And the academics at Oxford write that their findings align with evidence of greater social compassion and moral sensitivity among women. Counterintuitive findings Fabian Stephany, a departmental research lecturer at the Oxford Internet Institute and one of the authors of the study, says that one of the most interesting things his research found was that some common preconceptions about AI usage werent corroborated. Theres a widely held assumption, for example, that greater tech literacy translates into higher use and adoption. But he found that this isnt always the case. In fact, in some cases, greater literacy and knowledge about AI actually drove down use. Also of note, the research found that among those who said they were concerned about AIs impact on the environment and on mental health, womens concerns were more likely to translate into action than mens concerns. In other words: Women were more likely to stop using AI because of the way they felt about it. Asked why that might be, Stephany said he could only speculate. Research done by academics in Iran in 2022, though, might provide an answer: It shows that women generally lean toward a more collectivist mindsetreflected in concerns for society, for examplewhile men tend to lean toward a more individualist one. Women are “the canary in the coal mine” Stephany says that the last thing he wants people to take away from this research is that women need to change or be fixed in some way. Their concerns are real, he says. Women are like the canary in the coal mine. And we should listen to these concerns, he adds. The important thing isnt to tell women to be more optimisticits to address the harms. And, he says, these harms can be addressed. Biases can be reduced, carbon footprints can be lowered, smaller models can be run locally, Stephani says. We dont have to wait for future breakthroughs. We can reduce harms now. His research suggests that theres a sizable market of people with strong convictions about AI consumption, he says. A more green, sustainable, inclusive gen AI model would have a clear target market.” And there are already platforms available that seem to be tapping into this market that Stephany mentions. GreenPT, for example, bills itself as a platform that runs on renewable energy and is hosted in Europe for strict data protection. Viro, another platform, funds clean energy projects and markets itself as a climate-neutral alternative to less environmentally conscious options. Speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, which operates ChatGPT, tried to allay fears that his technology might be accelerating climate change by framing it as a tool to enhance sustainability. If we have to spend even 1% of the worlds electricity training powerful AI, and that AI helps us figure out how to get to non-carbon-based energy or to do carbon capture better, that would be a massive win, he said. As for Burgi, she would want to see a lot of changes before even entertaining the idea of intentionally incorporating AI use into her daily life. She doesnt think that anything could meaningfully allay her ethical concerns about AI. Especially as an artist, I just don’t feel morally aligned with using AI, she says. In terms of her environmental concerns, shes similarly skeptical. If there was more transparency, and if it seemed like more thought and care was being put into these thingsif it wasnt just about greed and capitalismthen I might consider it from an environmental concern, she says. But right now? I dont really see any of that happening.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||