Emotion as a catalyst for fast and lasting change
Tobey and Manning (2009) argue that emotional contagion is a predecessor to unfreezing resistance. They propose a model of emotional contagion for synchronizing individual emotions within a group so change agents can facilitate the arousal that drives change. Understanding how individual emotions synchronize to motivate group change provides insight into how change agents can use emotion to overcome resistance. This model also shows how rapid large-scale change is possible through managing individual and group emotions by addressing the defensive reasoning that strengthens resistance.
The “melting glacier” serves as a metaphor that demonstrates the point at which resistance to change shifts to motivation. Rapid change starts when emotional states become contagious enough to unfreeze habitual behavior. Arousal serves as the heating element that starts the melting process. Because emotional arousal precedes rational evaluation, group change can only happen when the unconscious arousal levels become contagious. Central to the intervention method implied by the Toby and Manning model is creating and feeding the "emotional frenzy" that fosters the herd behavior leaders can use to manipulate change. Considering the neurological processes that foster mob mentality, the authors explain how leaders throughout history have nourished the seeds of revolution, and propose a model that change agents can use to apply this power within an organizational context.
To help leaders control the "floodgates" that can overwhelm an organization when the emotional flames are put to the glacier, Tobey and Manning (2009) propose emotional intelligence training to help the leaders develop sensitivity to the emotional levels of organizational members. Introducing the concept of emotional intelligence training for the leaders is quite interesting because it is a model that fosters up an emotional frenzy to manipulate herd behavior that seems antithetical to emotional intelligence concepts.
According to Bradberry and Greeves (2005), emotional intelligence training attempts to teach people how to think before they act on emotions. EI presents a model of how experience passes through the limbic system--the part that controls automatic emotional response--and provides a visual representation of how stopping long enough to think about the experience allows time for the stimulus to be processed in the frontal lobe--the executive functioning center of the brain. EI requires effective communication between the rational and emotional centers of the brain so people can think about what they are feeling and consciously do something productive with that feeling.
The Tobey and Manning (2009) model recognize the same neurological mechanisms as EQ. However, rather than encouraging people to stop and think, the model encourages leadership to manipulate behavior while experience is still in the limbic system. This is equivalent to using the stress response to manipulate people to change.
An important point that Tobey and Manning (2009) make is that emotional stimulus tends to be a prerequisite to individual change; thinking about change is not enough to drive change. For example, knowing that proper diet and regular exercise are vital for maintaining physical health is one thing; eating right and exercising are something else. When people do take action to change eating and exercise habits, that action is usually motivated by emotional stimulus, such as a beloved relative’s death from alcohol poisoning, the upcoming class reunion, a breakup of a long-term relationship, a heart attack, getting fired, etc. Even with such strong shocks to unfreeze the status quo, resulting intrinsic motivators can have limited influence unless supported by extrinsic forces that focus energy and foster persistence to goal attainment (Latham, 2000; Locke & Latham, 2002).
Though emotion as a catalyst for change may be a relatively new concept in the organizational literature, politicians, religious leaders, marketers, magicians, and con artists have long understood the power of emotion to control people for their interests. Tobey and Manning (2009) offer Hitler as a leader who effectively used emotion to manipulate people into action. However, examples of emotional manipulation of people and society are more commonplace than this extreme example.
For example, Moveon.org compared George Bush to Hitler for tapping the emotionally charged 911 aftermath to implement the Patriot Act and promote a Republican agenda (Associated Press, 2010). Similarly, the North Iowa Tea Party compared Barack Obama to Hitler and Lenin for feeding an emotional frenzy to promote democratic socialism (Fox News, 2004). Special interest groups and media from across the political spectrum used accusations of both comparisons to fan emotional frenzy for their causes.
Case study: Backfire
A caveat for change leaders is that using emotion to manipulate individuals and groups can cause adverse consequences for the change agent. For example, from personal experience, a new high school principal fired all experienced teachers and replaced them with new inexperienced teachers who aligned with her political perspectives. The principal used emotional appeals to manipulate the group to organize to protect her political interests. As the teachers adjusted to their environment, they began to realize the manipulative tactics the principal was using and joined external political forces to oust her from the school. Another example would be the cacophony of emotional appeals from political and special interests that followed 9/11 with competing factions attempting to whip up an emotional frenzy to drive change within their interests.
I propose that emotional manipulation seems to work on the stupid, inexperienced, immature, vulnerable, and consciously willing; but may have limited influence or even be counter-productive when attempted on the experienced, mature, intelligent, capable, and skeptical. A lesson from the marketing world applies here: different approaches work with different people depending on different factors, while some appeals will not work on some of the people any time. Leaders who rely on emotion as a tool to break down resistance in individuals and groups should be aware the risks of backlash when people realize they are being emotionally manipulated.