What's So Bad About Being "Touchy-Feely"?
Earlier this month, Pixar’s Inside Out 2 became the highest grossing animated movie of all time, recording $1.52 billion ($860 million domestically) in ticket sales. It’s now also number ten on the top grossing movie list. Riley Anderson, its star, successfully dealt with joy, sadness, fear, disgust and anger in Inside Out 1 but now at the difficult age of thirteen has to contend with anxiety, envy, embarrassment and ennui. Clearly, parents taking their children to these films recognize the power and importance of emotions and how to manage them. They’re not afraid of what legions of adults consider the “touchy-feely” stuff.
In relationships, whether at home or at work, labeling someone as “touchy-feely” carries connotations of a person who is focused too much on feelings, overly emotional and too sensitive. The frequent assumption is that such people won’t be rational and objective in the tough, real world. In short, if you believe it important to sense and deal with emotions, it’s not always seen as a plus in America’s traditionally macho-oriented culture. That may contribute to the fact that nearly a quarter of Americans report mental health issues and why men are more reluctant to admit them than women. The more than 25,000 psychiatrists in the nation are thus often humorously labeled “shrinks,” a term likely derived from some indigenous tribes who shrank the heads of enemies.
The tendency to be critical and/or wary of anyone viewed as “touchy-feely” nevertheless ignores overwhelming evidence that the inability to understand, appreciate and manage feelings is associated with the failure of organizational and political leaders and, of course, personal relationships.
In organizational leadership, a person who focuses on strategic planning, measurement systems, information technology, finances and budgets is seen as attending to the “hard” stuff. Such leaders are seen as strong, decisive and in control. Leaders who attend to workers’ emotions are often seen as too focused on the “soft” stuff with a danger of being weak and unable to make tough calls. In reality, though, this “soft stuff” is the harder stuff leaders have to master.
The nonprofit Center for Creative Leadership has researched why leaders in organizations plateau (reach a point where they stop rising in the hierarchy) or fail. What they found is that a lot of “soft stuff” trips them up. It’s skills in “interpersonal savvy,” “communicating effectively,” “leveraging differences,” “inspiring commitment,” “developing and empowering” and being good at “leading change” that they have not mastered.
In politics, candidates strive to appear tough, decisive and no-nonsense. They want voters to consider them “strong,” contrasted with their opponent(s) who they describe as soft, weak or having “feminine” traits (ignoring of course the strength that women repeatedly demonstrate in their lives and public affairs). This false dichotomy pushes us to conclude a politician can’t be objective and sensitive, tough and tender, when in fact some of our best leaders have been both. Lincoln pursued the Civil War with determined toughness while pardoning scores of deserters and showing magnanimity to the South at war’s end. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was resolute and guided by logic during the Great Depression and World War II yet his concern for the common man endeared him to the nation, an emotional strength likely developed from his having experienced and helped others stricken with polio.
In corporations and politics, ignoring the “touchy-feely” side of dealing with others weakens what economists call “social capital,” defined as the network of social relationships built by shared values and norms that result in trust and cooperation. Social capital is the “grease” for the wheels of commerce and governance. One has only to look at our largely dysfunctional Congress to see the damage that a loss of social capital causes. In recent decades, members spend much of their time away from Washington, D.C., distrust politicians of the opposing party and socialize less with them. This contributes to weakening the social capital essential to compromise.
At the interpersonal level, bruised feelings, resentments and the inability to listen attentively not just to facts but the emotions of others destroys trust, ruins friendships, family interactions and marriages. A study on why married couples in America get divorced cited “lack of commitment” as the most frequent reason, defined as “a diminished desire to put effort into making your relationship work” which includes “poor communication, lack of compromise, or the absence of everyday kindness.” The second most frequent reason was “too much arguing and conflict,” defined as including “endless arguments and poor conflict resolution.”
Emotional Intelligence (EI), popularized by psychologist Daniel Goleman, contains behaviors associated with self-awareness and self-regulation of one’s emotions, social interaction skills, empathy and the ability to grasp others’ motivations. Research over the years has highlighted the value of EI to interpersonal success.
At the close of Inside Out 2, Riley develops a new sense of self, integrating her old and new emotions to achieve sound mental health and relationships. She looks at herself in the mirror with a smile. Hopefully, the children leaving the theater will go out into the world and do the same
Photo Credit: Inside Out 2 - “Anxiety” - Courtesy of Pixar
(If you do not currently subscribe to thinkanew.org and wish to receive future posts, send an email with the word SUBSCRIBE to responsibleleadr@gmail.com)
