Is anger ever strategic?
If you leave your subordinates thinking you've lost your temper, do the benefits ever outweigh the costs?
Okay, now we dive into a controversial topic. Direct, honest communication has many benefits, but how aggressive can a manager be without seeming angry? Some managers simply don’t care: if they come across as angry, so be it, they insist on being direct even when being direct is going to make some people uncomfortable.
Here is a true story about two men I’ve worked with several times over the course of several years. I’m going to call them Armsdale and Gary. This story was related to me by Gary. Keep in mind, most people really enjoy working for Armsdale, and that includes myself and Gary, but this story took place way back when Armsdale and Gary met for the first time.
A company I'll call Centauri was in trouble, and they called in a great devops engineer, Gary, to help them modernize their tech stack. They also brought in a great business/tech consultant, Armsdale who had committed to having the new tech stack ready for use by March, but April arrived and the new tech stack still wasn't operational. So Armsdale called Gary into a meeting.
Armsdale: Have you set up the servers with the new Oracle databases?
Gary: Yes, the servers are running and the software is installed.
Armsdale: If that's true, what's the roadblock that keeps us from using this in production?
Gary: Mostly it's a matter of security. I don't know what roles or permissions we need in production.
Armsdale: That’s what’s blocking you? Who did you talk to about this?
Gary: I talked to the lead engineer, but they didn’t know what roles or permissions would be needed on the business side.
Armsdale: So go talk to the business side. Do you realize we are running a month late?
Gary: My point of contact on the business side was Sally, the project manager, but she recently quit. I don’t know who is going to replace her.
Armsdale: Well, why don't you find out! Do you even care that we're running a month late?
Gary: I've spoken to Robin, who used to manage Sally, but she doesn't know either.
Armsdale: God damn it, someone has to know! Track it down! The databases are your job, and so everything related to setting up the databases is your job! Do your damn job!
Gary: The problem is no one knows. Really no one. Not right now. The business intelligence team has planned some big changes, relative to the old system, but none of those changes have been finalized, so it’s impossible to formalize their needs as a system of roles and permissions in the database.
Armsdale: And it never occurred to you to simply copy over the roles and permissions you were using in development?
Gary: Again, we weren't told what the new roles would be, so in development we left the database wide open to anyone.
Armsdale: Are you insane? Wide open to anyone? All the company secrets could be stolen!
Gary: No chance of that. I locked it down to the local network, so only engineers in the building could reach it. But for them, the database is wide open, they can do anything with it.
Armsdale: And were the engineers able to start testing the new software with the wide open database?
Gary: No.
Armsdale: Why not?
Gary: The software assumes the existence of certain teams, with specific permissions, but again, those are about to change.
Armsdale: It was your responsibility to set up the database and now we are a month late. If the lead engineer didn't know what the new roles and permissions and teams would be, and if Robin didn’t know, then you could have pressed them to press the business intelligence team to make some preliminary decisions. You could have done something to get your work back on schedule!
Gary (very calm): I did go talk to Robin. We had a long conversation about this. And she promised to put pressure on the business intelligence team. They’ve promised to get me the rough draft of the teams and permissions this week.
Armsdale (suddenly calm): Oh, I see. Okay, that’s great. Well, move forward when you get their answer. If you don’t get what you need from them, let me know and I’ll put some pressure on them.
Gary: Do you know anyone on that side of things?
Armsdale: The business intelligence team?
Gary: Yeah.
Armsdale: I’ve met Ackerman, who they report to.
Gary: Can you ask you him?
Armsdale: Wait, I’ll call him.
(Phone rings.)
Ackerman: Hello, this is Ackerman.
Armsdale: Hi, this is Armsdale, working to set up the new database and software system, but listen, we’re stuck waiting for a list of the teams and permissions that are supposed to come from the business intelligence team. We can’t make any progress till we get them. I’m wondering if you can help us get what we need?
Ackerman: Oh, hey Armsdale, yeah, sure, they just sent me the rough draft. I was going to look it over tomorrow.
Armsdale: Can you look it over today? We are running late and I’d like to get this project back on schedule.
Ackerman: Okay, sure, I’ve got a meeting right now, but I’ll look at right after. I’ll send it to you by the end of the day.
Armsdale: Thank you much!
As unlikely as it seems, this was the start of a beautiful business relationship. Armsdale thereafter trusted Gary and called him in to a dozen different companies to help with a dozen different rescue missions. And Gary appreciated Armsdale’s sometimes rough but direct approach to solving problems immediately.
Was Armsdale actually angry during this conversation? Who knows? He seemed to get angry with little provocation, and then a moment later his anger vanished without a trace. He was aggressive, but only so he could quickly discover the truth of the situation. As soon as he decided the real problem was Ackerman, Armsdale stopped attacking Gary and instead worked with him to get what the team needed.
In my experience, no one wants to work for a manager who is unable to control their emotions. Most of the managers who think they are being strategic in their use of manipulative tactics are in fact much more clumsy than they realize, so these tactics backfire more often than they help.
So do I think Armsdale was making a mistake by acting the way he did? Not exactly. I think he offers an interesting lesson, though it is a subtle point, and I worry that people will misunderstand it. He was being direct, and he simply didn’t care if he came across as angry. What matters is that he honestly cared about the project. He wasn’t simply indulging his ego, nor was he merely venting his frustration, but rather, he was pushing to find out the real problem so he could solve it. At first he thought Gary was the problem, then he realized the business intelligence team was the problem, so he reached out to Ackerman to solve the problem.
A crucial fact about this scene is that he and Gary were alone, so there was no risk of embarrassing Gary in front of others – if others had been present then such aggressive behavior would have been a mistake. That Armsdale and Gary worked on several projects over several years suggests that Gary understood that Armsdale was simply being direct but not fundamentally disrespectful.
Is it wise to pursue this level of directness? I’d say yes but also be cautious. On the one hand, it is often important to push hard to get at the truth of a situation, so the problem can be fixed. On the other hand, doing this comes dangerously close to being disrespectful, and if you get a reputation as a disrespectful leader, then no one with real talent will want to work with you.
In summary, anger is never strategic, but it is true that you will sometimes make others uncomfortable when you are direct and honest, and you need to be direct and honest. This is a tough balance to strike, and reasonable people will disagree about where to draw the line. You need to be aware of the tension: don’t be afraid of it, but remember that other people are afraid of it.