 |
|
|
|||||
Your emotions at work aren’t fixed, even when they feel completely overwhelming during high-pressure situations. We can change them (with some effort and practice) to improve our performance, enhance our leadership effectiveness, and achieve our career goals. Emotions are not something we should suppress or ignore in professional settings; that’s an outdated approach that misses how essential emotional intelligence is to workplace success. We shouldn’t aim to subordinate our emotions to reason or vice versa, but we should aim for a careful collaboration between the two. If you want to regulate your emotions to be informed by their wisdom but not ruled by their grip, here are some of the most tested strategies. Switch up the circumstance. The easiest way to regulate an emotion like anger is to remove the cues you interpret as angering. This means avoiding situations and people you code as triggering, for example, spending less time on social media, keeping your distance from your boss toward the end of the quarter, and avoiding that one vegan who won’t stop talking about doing CrossFit. Eliminating or reducing the cues that we interpret as angering diminishes the experience of unpleasant emotions. This strategy, however, does not help you directly address the beliefs and assumptions that helped manufacture the emotional response in the first place. For example, if you interpret your news feed as angering, shutting the app will reduce instances of anger, but it does nothing to help you process and change the beliefs and expectations contributing to your rage. Nevertheless, if your reaction is too heated and you don’t yet have the necessary skills to try other emotion-regulating methods, switching up the circumstance can be a good way to avoid doing more damage. Look, over there! When you can’t escape the situation, a second strategy for managing your emotions is to distract yourself from the unpleasant cues. You might tune out your annoying Uncle Charlie at Thanksgiving dinner and focus instead on the cousins you want to see. A similar strategy is to catch yourself ruminating on negative events and actively intervene, like when you notice your boss hovering for the hundredth time, and turn your attention instead to helping your customers. While this strategy has been shown to reduce unpleasant emotions in the short term, it can weaken your long-term resilience, just like the circumstance-switching strategy. For example, research shows that when people trained to distract themselves from a negative interaction are re-exposed to their troublesome situations, they can actually have a stronger adverse reaction than before. Similarly, suppressing emotions by pushing them down or ignoring them doesn’t work; in fact, suppressing emotions can enable stronger negative reactions to things that are unrelated, like when you swallow your anger when your company fires half its employees, the CEO doubles her salary, and then you find yourself in your car screaming at the drivers going out of turn at the four-way stop. So, distracting yourself and suppressing emotions are merely short-term strategies to control anger. Reframe. A third strategy for addressing negative emotions like anger is to change how you interpret the negative stimuli by reframing the situation. What might seem like an annoying act, like when your colleague rephrases every suggestion you offer in a meeting before accepting it, is less annoying when you realize there’s something else going on hereit’s how your colleague processes information. Reframing allows you to change the thoughts that create an emotion and thus decrease the negative emotions you feel. Indeed, reframing a situation to see yourself from an observer’s perspective creates psychological distance and can help manage intense feelings. For reframing to work, you must really believe the new perspective; it can’t be a faint-hearted attempt to deceive yourself. “I know that bankruptcy will make me stronger!” Reframing is one of the most studied interventions for emotional regulation and is better for long-term resilience than distraction or removing the triggering stimuli. This strategy is particularly useful for uncontrollable negative stimuli. It is not as good for controllable cues because reframing can also make you complacent and reticent to make changes. One risk of reframing is that you can become less motivated to act directly against the cues and situations you interpret as angering. Also, we can reframe our emotional experiences more effectively if we have a richer emotional vocabulary. For example, when you can more carefully distinguish between feeling frustrated, insulted, or nervous, you can take targeted actions addressing your feelings. But if you can only describe your emotional states as either fine, tired, or hungry, then your strategies for intervention are similarly blunt. A richer set of emotion words can help you more carefully identify the thoughts, patterns, and situations that contribute to your experiences and thus manage them more intentionally. When you can tell the difference between feeling powerless and petrified, you stand a better chance of doing something about it. The subtle differences are essential to help yourself calm down, channel your energy positively, or cope more effectively. Try something new. Finally, when you are upset and angry, a variety of behaviors can accompany your emotions. You can scream, whisper threats, cry, go silent, get curious, pound your fists, start yelling, or even start laughing or get really friendly. Modulating your responses is not about changing your emotions but about changing how you choose to express them. When we read an angering tweet, we can ignore it, joke about it, tweet something positive, change the subject, report the tweet, ask a question, reply with a counterpoint, organize a protest, and many other things. Similarly, when you feel upset, going for a walk, setting out on a run, or exercising can help you manage the physiological reactions and channel them toward a positive end. Regulating our responses is a powerful tool for being informed by our emotions and being intentional about how we express them. The goal isn’t to eliminate emotions from your professional life but to work with them more skillfully. When you master these strategies, you’ll find that your emotions become valuable allies rather than obstacles to your workplace success. Adapted excerpt from Radical Doubt by BIDHAN L. PARMAR, available now wherever books are sold. Copyright 2025 BIDHAN L. PARMAR. Printed with permission of the publisher, Diversion Books. All rights reserved.
Category:
E-Commerce
Worldwide, an estimated 440 million people were exposed to a wildfire encroaching on their home at some point between 2002 and 2021, new research shows. Thats roughly equivalent to the entire population of the European Union, and the number has been steadily risingup 40% over those two decades. With intense, destructive fires often in the news, it can seem like more land is burning. And in parts of the world, including western North America, it is. Globally, however, our team of fire researchers also found that the total area burned actually declined by 26% over those two decades. How is that possible? We found the driving reasons for those changes in Africa, which has the vast majority of all land burned, but the total burned area there has been falling. Agricultural activities in Africa are increasingly fragmenting wildland areas that are prone to burning. A cultivated farm field and roads can help stop a fires spread. But more farms and development in wildland areas also means more people can be exposed to wildfires. Drawing on our expertise in climate and wildfire sciences and geospatial modeling, we analyzed global wildfire activity over the past two decades. The results highlight some common misperceptions and show how the fire risk to humans is changing. Global burned area down, intense fires up Wildfire is a natural process that has existed for as long as vegetation has covered the Earth. Occasional fires in a forest are healthy. They clear out dead wood and leaf and branch litter, leaving less fuel for future fires to burn. That helps to keep wildfires from becoming too intense. However, intense fires can also pose serious threats to human lives, infrastructure and economies, particularly as more people move into fire-prone areas. North and South America have both experienced a rise in intense wildfires over the past two decades. Some notable examples include the 2018 Camp Fire in California and the 2023 record-breaking Canadian wildfires, which generated widespread smoke that blanketed large parts of Canada and the eastern United States, and even reached Europe. The increase in intense wildfires aligns with the intensification of fire weather around the world. Heat, low humidity and strong winds can make wildfires more likely to spread and harder to control. The number of days conducive to extreme fire behavior and new fire ignitions has increased by more than 50% over the past four decades globally, elevating the odds that the amount of land burned in a particular region sets a new record. But fire weather is not the only influence on wildfire risk. The amount of dry vegetation, and whether its in a continuous stretch or broken up, influences fire risk. So do ignition sources, such as vehicles and power lines in wildland areas. Human activities can start fires and fuel climate change, which further dries out the land, amplifying wildfire activity. Fire suppression practices that dont allow low-intensity fires to burn can lead to the accumulation of flammable vegetation, raising the risk of intense fires. North America is a fraction of total burned area In recent years, a growing number of wildfire disasters in North America, Europe and Australia have captured global attention. From the deadly 2025 Los Angeles fires to the devastating 2019-2020 Australian bushfires and the 2018 wildfire in Athens, Greece, flames have increasingly encroached upon human settlements, claiming lives and livelihoods. However, wildfire exposure isnt limited to these high-profile regionswe simply hear more about them. The United States, Europe, and Australia collectively account for less than 2.5% of global human exposure to wildfire. Human exposure to fire occurs when peoples homes fall directly within the area burned by a wildfire. In stark contrast, Africa alone accounts for approximately 85% of all wildfire exposures and 65% of the global burned area. Remarkably, just five central African countriesthe Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Mozambique, Zambia, and Angolaexperience half of all global human exposure to wildfires, even though they account for less than 3% of the global population. These countries receive sufficient moisture to support plant growth, yet they are dry enough that trees and plants burn in frequent fires that in some places occur multiple times per year. Regional trends and drivers of wildfire We found that wildfire exposure increased across all continents except Europe and Oceania, but the underlying drivers of the increase varied by region. In Africa, agricultural expansion has led to more people living in fire-prone areas. In North America, particularly the United States, intensifying fire weatherthe hot, dry, windy conditions conducive to spreading fireshas led to increasingly uncontrollable wildfires that threaten human settlements. In South America, a combination of rising drought frequency and severity, intensifying heat waves and agriculural expansion has amplified wildfire intensity and increased the population in fire-prone regions. In Asia, growing populations in fire-prone areas, combined with more days of fire-friendly weather, led to increased human exposure to wildfires. In contrast, Europe and Oceania have seen declining wildfire exposures, largely due to more people moving to cities and fewer living in rural, fire-prone zones. What to do about it Communities can take steps to prevent destructive wildfires from spreading. For example, vegetation management, such as prescribed fires, can avoid fueling intense fires. Public education, policy enforcement, and engineering solutionssuch as vegetation reduction and clearance along roads and power linescan help reduce human-caused ignitions. As climate change intensifies fire weather and people continue to move into fire-prone zones, proactive mitigation will be increasingly critical. Mojtaba Sadegh is an associate professor of civil engineering and a senior fellow at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health at Boise State University. John Abatzoglou is a professor of engineering at the University of California, Merced. Seyd Teymoor Seydi is a researcher in remote sensing at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
When it comes to starting a new job, first impressions matter. That’s especially true when it comes to the impression a company makes on new hires during onboarding procedures. According to new research, onboarding procedures such as welcoming new employees, and training them can have long-term impacts. The quality of an employee’s onboarding can affect their long-term motivation and even how long they plan to stick around. A new survey from Software Finder of 1,010 employees who were hired within the last two years found that employees onboarding experiences varied greatly. While almost half (46%) found onboarding procedures to be welcoming, and about a third (34%) said their onboarding was well-structured, many described the experience in negative terms. About a third (29%) said the process was disorganized, 26% described it as rushed, and 21% called it underwhelming. Shockingly, only 28% of new hires said the onboarding process prepared them for their role. In fact, two-thirds (67%) of respondents said the procedures didn’t accurately represent their responsibilities or the company as a whole. A bad onboarding experience can impact how long employees want to stay with the company, the survey found. Nearly half of employees (48%) who said they had a bad onboarding experience, said they wanted to leave the company within six months. However, employees with positive onboarding experiences felt differently. Nearly 4 in 10 (39%) said an effective onboarding actually increased their desire to stick around long term. And over half of employees (55%) with a positive onboarding experience said they’d want to stay at the job long term. By comparison, only 10% of new hires with negative onboarding experiences felt similarly. In fact, 77% of employees who had a positive onboarding experience said they felt more connected to the company after the onboarding. Likewise, 61% of employees said the impact of onboarding has an impact on their future work ethic and engagement. Interestingly, employees seem up for reengagement. Seven out of 10 said they’d favor a re-onboarding experience after their first six months at a new job to help them align more fully with the company. That might be good news for companies who got it wrong the first time around.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||