Aggressiveness is not necessarily a bad word, or so I thought.
I thought I wanted to take a longer break away from social media and have cleared off all my former posts, comments and interactions in my recent digital spring cleaning.
But the event I attended today at INSEAD by Singapore Leaders Network (SGLN) left me with a few thoughts which I wanted to share.
During the panel discussion on dispute resolution, I shared how I was often told that I am too aggressive. I was first given that feedback during my time at OBS (actually, on second thoughts, I may have received that feedback before and OBS may not be the first). Later, I went to the military and received similar feedback then, and I thought to myself: Oh my, if this is the military and I was told that I am too aggressive, then where else should I go? So I thought perhaps it was because I was quite a different person when I was in uniform and since I left the military, I have toned down very much, although this may be disputed by some. I remember saying this - I am not here to make a living, make merry or make friends. I am here to make a difference. And I stand by that, because joining the military was never about having a career. I already had one prior to donning the uniform. But you can imagine the character of the kind of person who would say something like that.
I asked the panel - Yet, incredibly successful leaders, people like Jim Mattis and Lee Kuan Yew were by no means docile individuals. So what does the panel think about the place aggressiveness has when it comes to dispute resolution?
In fact, recently when I read Jim Mattis’s book - Call Sign Chaos, he mentioned that there are two initiatives for which Marines are promoted - Aggressiveness and Initiative. Jim Mattis also has a famous quote - There is no better friend, or worse foe, than a US Marine. Yes, I get it that he is a military person and not every context is war. An example closer to home perhaps - Many Singaporeans laud our founding Prime Minister for what he has achieved. But I question how many of them would find it comfortable under his leadership today? To me, the point is clear - it is always about trade-offs.
In the aggression that I have shown, I am trading social capital for something else. Perhaps it is to protect my team, perhaps it is to send a message, or maybe it is to teach a lesson or to widen the path for those who have to come through after me. It is seldom done in a moment of rage (at least not blind rage). After all, I am no longer the 15-year-old who cannot control his anger very well. But I would say that strong emotions are a signal to me that something is wrong, which Professor Eric Luis Uhlmann has affirmed in his sharing as well - people who are unable to feel emotions are unable to make rational decisions.
Perhaps one lesson that I learned in my adolescence was that while there are some who leave you alone after you let them get what they want, there are those who will stomp and step on you long after you have backed off just because they can. That lesson was learned and imprinted in my head when I was cowering at a HDB void deck while a few other boys much older were raining blows on me. That night, I learned something about human nature, which is why I have always thought it is naïve to think that diplomacy would work alone in our foreign policy. Although I would also agree that it is also not about whose fist is the bigger. It is somewhere in the middle, where we both treat each other equally and with respect. Unfortunately, the way to earn respect and basic civility sometimes can be ugly.
I am not an advocate for aggression, but I think there is value in being taken seriously. In fact, when I look back at some of my past decisions, while I reflect and feel that there are ways which I can do better, I find that I should not have compromised that much and should have stood even firmer by my values.
One of the quotes that Lee Kuan Yew said often comes to mind -
If you are not feared when you say something, people won’t take notice. But they know that when I say something, I mean it. If you’re gonna cross swords with me, then you must be willing to get stabbed. That’s that. If I think this is going to be necessary to do, and you set out to thwart me, then we fight. But to avoid a fight I make quite sure that you understand that I will fight. Simple as that. I am not interested in being loved. What’s the profit in it?
I am nowhere near as tough as him. I still look forward to being loved. But I know that it has to give way to something more important at times. By writing this post and sharing what was the feedback that was given to me in the past would further reinforce a perception of the kind of person I am. Perhaps this might deter people from wanting to network or associate with me. Again, I am trading it with something else. Rather than pretending to be who I am not, I am proposing the value of someone like me. Hence, I ask this question - In a moment of crisis and challenge, who would you want on your side? Someone who is docile, agreeable and compliant? Or someone who would fend and fight for your rights, interests and well-being? Perhaps that is a false choice because, like what Aristotle said: A virtue is a mean between extremes, but you get the point.
Aggressiveness is a tool, an attribute, and perhaps even a skill. But ultimately, it is not a bad word on its own. In a world of sheep and wolves, I see myself as the German Shepherd. No wolves are going to listen to the German Shepherd if it behaves like a chihuahua.
Perhaps one last point that I really want to drive across is that while some of the audience may think that there are key differences in dispute resolution when it comes to different genders, I beg to differ. I joked during the session in response to one comment that women are being taken less seriously, that I do take my wife seriously since she is the first female from the Special Operations Command (I still love the idea of being able to walk and bathe myself). But the bigger point is this - I would propose that it is what you bring to the table in a negotiation rather than your gender. Systemically there may be some impact due to culture, but modern women have proven themselves in diverse fields, even in areas which they were once thought to be incapable of dominating. In fact, both invited panel speakers were women; I thought that should send a message.
Thanks for the insights Danna Er, Jerrica Chooi and Nadir Zafar.
And thanks for the wonderful conversation - Edmond Ho Ben Chua Wilvan, Kim Chuan WEE CS Yeow Alexis K. Georgiou Nicolette Ng Thomas Teng Anita Tomar Hemant Phul
P.S.: I wrote this, not AI. I suspect there will be spelling mistakes and I apologize to the English speaking community for tarnishing the language.
From my own experience both in professional settings and personal life, I've come to understand that aggressiveness is a complex tool—neither inherently bad nor good. It requires careful balance: too much can alienate, but too little can result in being overlooked or taken advantage of. When I faced conflicts, whether in the workplace or in negotiations, asserting myself firmly often helped establish boundaries and convey seriousness without resorting to hostility. I recall occasions where standing my ground protected my team’s interests and sent clear messages to counterparts about what was acceptable. This was never about anger or rash actions; rather, it was a measured decision to use assertiveness responsibly. This connects well with what the author mentions about trading social capital—sometimes aggressive stances may sacrifice personal likability for greater goods like fairness or leadership credibility. Furthermore, the reference to Marines being promoted for aggressiveness and initiative resonates because those qualities spur decisive actions in uncertain situations. Yet, as the article notes, it’s the balance—like Aristotle’s virtue as a mean—that ultimately defines effectiveness. True leadership is knowing when to push forward and when to yield. I also appreciate the perspective on gender and dispute resolution. In my interactions, I’ve seen that respect in negotiations stems more from competence and confidence than gender alone. Women excel in many traditionally male-dominated fields by bringing unique insights coupled with assertive negotiation skills. Hearing from a panel with prominent female leaders highlights the shift towards valuing capability regardless of gender. Ultimately, aggressiveness used thoughtfully can command respect and create meaningful impact. It’s not about who shouts louder but who communicates a steadfast purpose clearly. Just like the metaphor of the German Shepherd, it’s about acting with strength and intelligence, not aggression for its own sake. This realization helped me embrace my own assertive tendencies while learning to temper them with empathy and strategic thinking—qualities essential for effective dispute resolution and leadership in any arena.
