There is a particular kind of advice that circulates in leadership circles: Stay calm. Stay composed. Never let them see you emotional. It sounds reasonable, almost sophisticated, the way good manners often do. But beneath that guidance lies a subtle misunderstanding—that calmness, by itself, is evidence of strength.
Michael Bloomberg once remarked that he never liked anyone who didn’t have a temper. The statement feels abrasive at first, a little too blunt for modern leadership sensibilities. But if you sit with it long enough, you begin to understand what he might have meant. Hindi naman ibig sabihin na kailangan laging galit. The point is simpler: when something matters deeply, it rarely leaves you emotionally untouched.
The people who appear calm about everything often aren’t masters of discipline; sometimes they’re simply less invested. Nothing is at stake for them. Walang skin in the game. And when nothing is at stake, indifference begins to masquerade as composure.
Building anything meaningful—whether a company, a team, or even a personal craft—demands a certain intensity. Not theatrical anger, but a kind of internal urgency. A refusal to treat standards casually. A willingness to say, “Hindi puwede ‘yan,” when something falls short. That kind of caring doesn’t always look polite. It sometimes shows up as impatience, as frustration, as the unmistakable energy of someone who refuses to let mediocrity pass quietly.
Leadership literature often romanticizes calmness as though it were the highest virtue, yet history suggests something more nuanced. The leaders who move institutions, reshape industries, or build enduring organizations are rarely apathetic personalities. They are people who care—sometimes inconveniently, sometimes intensely, sometimes in ways that make those around them uncomfortable. Their emotions are not explosions; they are signals that something important is happening.
Of course, there is a difference between temper and tantrum. The former comes from conviction; the latter from insecurity. The leader who loses control carelessly damages trust, but the leader who never feels strongly about anything risks inspiring nothing at all. A team can sense the difference. People are surprisingly perceptive about whether a leader’s intensity comes from ego or from commitment to the work itself.
Most of us, if we are honest, have experienced moments when our patience slipped—over missed deadlines, over careless decisions, over situations where people seemed not to take the mission seriously. Hindi natin ipinagmamalaki ang bawat pagkakataon na nawalan tayo ng composure, but neither should we confuse emotional investment with weakness. Sometimes frustration is simply the emotional cost of caring.
The opposite of intensity is not calmness; it is apathy. And apathy rarely builds anything that lasts. Empires—corporate, creative, or cultural—are not constructed by people who shrug their shoulders at outcomes. They are built by individuals who remain invested even when recognition disappears, who continue making difficult decisions long after motivation has faded, who carry a quiet but persistent fire that refuses to switch off.
Passion, in real life, is less glamorous than it sounds. It means years of unseen effort, thousands of small judgments made under pressure, and the stamina to keep going when applause is absent. That kind of persistence requires energy, and energy often has a temperature. Minsan mainit, minsan tahimik, but always present.
So perhaps the more useful leadership question is not whether someone has a temper, but whether that temper is anchored in purpose. A person who occasionally burns with conviction may be difficult at times, but at least you know where they stand. You know what they care about. You know that something, somewhere, truly matters to them.
And in the long, patient work of building anything real, that kind of caring—imperfect, intense, undeniably human—may be far more valuable than perfect calm.
--Othello
No comments:
Post a Comment