There are the practical immediate suggestions such as counting to 10, or 100 if you are really mad, deep breathing, or taking a break and going for a walk. Other responses concentrate on reflection about your behaviour, pointing out it is hard to make smart choices when you are angry and the need to decide whether your anger will be helpful or unhelpful.
Such a search might have been a valuable exercise for those Gore residents who rushed to start a petition over the district council’s recent decision to appoint outgoing chief executive Stephen Parry in an interim role until the new chief executive is appointed.
Petition organiser Hayden McIntyre has been quoted as saying the Gore District Citizen Action Group was "not just angry, we are furious".
The petition wants the decision to appoint Mr Parry in the interim role rescinded.
The group argues the appointment does not reflect community feeling and it fears an extended period of unrest.
The long-serving Mr Parry resigned last month after a tumultuous year where the council often hit the headlines over the dysfunctional relationships between the chief executive and new mayor Ben Bell, and the mayor and councillors.
It seemed everyone had an opinion on the issue, labelling Mr Bell as a saint and Mr Parry as a sinner or vice versa, and councillors as old guard sticks -in-the-mud, unwilling to accept a young mayor. As we have frequently said, because there is still much which has not been revealed about the behaviour of all players behind closed doors, and the circumstances under which Mr Parry came to his decision to leave, the validity of any of these opinions is questionable.
It comes as no surprise the meeting where the decision was made appears to have been stormy. The interim appointment is not ideal, including for Mr Parry who might have been looking forward to escaping from the drama of the last year.
Mr Bell is not likely to have been impressed, either, although he has said little publicly. It has been reported that the arrangement for Cr Richard McPhail to act as an intermediary between the mayor and Mr Parry would continue which suggests the relationship between Mr Bell and Mr Parry remains fraught.
But if there was nobody within the council staff able or willing to take on the role until a new appointment is made, sometime next year, the interim appointment seems a pragmatic one.
As acting Mayor Keith Hovell has pointed out, the small council does not have the money to fill the gaps arising from the departure of both Mr Parry and Mr Capil. There were also deadlines it had to meet for its long-term plan and the proposed district plan.
We wonder if the petitioners gave any thought to how their action might look to prospective candidates who might balk at entering a workplace where members of the community feel it is OK to give their employer frequent public advice on employment matters.
If there is still community concern about the way councillors are functioning, petitioners might be better to make a fresh call for the independent review to advise on practical measures to restore confidence in the council.
This was agreed to in April and should have been completed in September but was eventually shelved after Mr Parry’s resignation.
Without a comprehensive look at what went wrong and how the council could avoid falling into the same traps, we are not convinced the tumult will end when Mr Parry eventually leaves.
