Depression: an obstacle to learning LO10947

Eric Opp (eopp@mrj.com)
Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:56:15 -0500 (EST)

Replying to LO10937 --

After reading the last two postings (by Alison Glover & by Anonymous), I
want to throw some of my personal philosophy into the discussion.

Although, I 100% agree that working with sever depression is difficult
if not impossible at times, I also firmly believe that it is a myth that
an individual must be balanced and happy all the time (even though the
marketers of many products would have us subtlely believe that if we only
purchased their products we would be eternally happy). I would like to
illustrate this with two interesting anecdotes. There was recently a new
report on NPR (National Public Radio here in the US) on a study done in
Norway, I believe, which showed that the most productive and creative
workers were actually those that were most gloomy or "depressed" at work.
The conclusion being that the workers that were happy all the time were
simply satisfied with the work at hand and the solutions at hand, while
the gooly folks were much less satisfied with the solutions at hand, and
they were the ones that produced the most creative alternatives -
following in somewhat the spirit of Alison's high tech company. The second
anecdote is from the Autobiography of Willy Brandt, the former German
Chancellor. He was one of the most admired German post-war political
leaders, yet he also had some problems with depression. On several
occasions, he would get depressed and completely withdraw. Imagine doing
this while leading a country which was in essence the battleground for
much of the Cold War and the potential battlefront for World War III,
should it occur. He was usually prompted to get back into the fray after a
few days of reflection and relaxation by one of his closest advisors.

Robert Fritz in the Path of Least Resistance also writes that creating
is a process, which is separate from our moods. The moods we experience
are simply the colors, which accent our experience and not the experience
itself. He quotes the example, I believe, of a concert violinist, who can
produce (create) a high quality performance, whether (s)he is ecstatically
happy or depressively sad. Our emotions do not really stand in the way of
results we want to create - we can only let them take advantage of us if
we give them permission to.

Often, in my own experience, sadness or slight depression has come about
through either unexpressed anger or as a reflection of my environment
(everyone around me being depressed). In those situations, it is sometimes
hard to untangle, who is the mirror and the object (initial cause of
feeling down). This has often come in the guise of being forced to accept
someone or something, which goes completely against my character. I have
learned to reconcile this in the following manner. Each person I encounter
does have the fundamental right to be and to express him or herself as
they see fit or as they choose to. I, on the other hand, do not have to
fundamentally accept every behavior that they exhibit. For those behaviors
that I find unacceptable, I have a right and a duty to express those
fellings or opinions without insulting or degrading the other person. The
tough part behind that is that we often get all twisted up inside and
don't express the fellings of anger or disappointment, because we envision
loosing control. The more we fume, the more likely we are to loose
control.

On the other side of the coin, the people who we express our feelings to
often will get angry or depressed, because they don't want to hear what we
had to say. That is simply a game that you can't play along with
otherwise, you get into a negatively reinforcing spiral, get depressed or
explode. It is often not the big things rather the little things that pile
up and break the camel's back resulting in depression or explosion. In a
leadership role, you do not have to accept and (or) deal with every little
problem or excuse your followers bring to the table. Leadership in a
company or a democracy means, in my book, informed decision making based
on a respectful dialog by all chosen participants. I say chosen, because
there may be participants, who are just in it for their own agenda, just
want to disrupt the process, and have not chosen to participate in a
meanful dialog to attempt to create the best outcome possible. If those
are subordinates, there comes a time to make a decision and move on. If
they hold power and the decision cannot be made or implemented without
them, it's time for "no deal," cut your losses and move on to bigger and
better things.

--

Eric N. Opp

eopp@mrj.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>