This piece was contributed by Dr. Andrew Woolum, Assistant Professor of Management, Cameron School of Business
Rudeness in the workplace has gained a great deal of attention in the last 10 years from both business leaders and academics.
Described as “low-intensity, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm,” researchers have estimated that 98 percent of American workers have experienced rudeness at work, with 50 percent of workers experiencing rudeness at least weekly.
Given how unremarkable witnessing or being party to a single rude event among coworkers, customers, clients or political figures has become, is it even worthwhile to be concerned about the possible effects of rudeness in the workplace?
The short answer is yes.
Researchers have amassed a considerable body of work on the effects of rudeness in the workplace. What is most unique about this line of research is the consistency and uniformity with which these effects are found – in different countries, cultures, professions and age groups.
Researchers have demonstrated that it does not matter whether an individual was on the receiving end of a rude interaction or simply witnessed an interaction as a third party – the effects are virtually identical.
The experience of rudeness is associated with an assortment of significant and detrimental employee outcomes, such as heightened levels of stress, burnout, emotional exhaustion, absenteeism, turnover intentions, organizational exit and lower levels of organizational commitment, cognitive performance, goal progress, task performance and satisfaction with both supervisors and coworkers.
To make matters worse, researchers have demonstrated that rudeness can spread from person to person like the common cold and even be taken home from work where it has been shown to lead to lower levels of personal well-being, decreased marital satisfaction and greater work-family conflict.
Historically, the “low-intensity” nature of rudeness has allowed it to fly below most organizational radars. It is not the type of behavior so egregious as to be formally addressed by most policy manuals and employee handbooks. In choosing one’s battles, many managers might find that addressing an employee’s intermittent rudeness or an interaction that occurred over the weekend between an employee and a customer may not make the cut when determining that day’s priorities.
To make matters more difficult, the “ambiguous intent” aspect of rudeness means that an individual’s words or behavior can be interpreted in several different ways. In other words, whether something is actually “rude” is in the eye of the beholder – two people can walk away from the same conversation with very different impressions regarding the intent of what was said or done. Most managers might prefer not to involve themselves in an extended “he said—she said” conversation with two employees when the accused offender states, “I never intended it to be taken that way,” to no satisfaction of the accuser. Others have simply felt that a little rudeness in the workplace is no big deal.
So, what can be done?
The answer to this question is currently one of the most researched and least understood topics in rudeness research. Unfortunately, the options currently available to organizations are limited, in that only a few studies have provided any answers. Among the findings are that businesses might do well to: limit employees’ exposure to rudeness in the morning, as it tends to “set the tone” for the day; place individuals with certain personalities who are naturally more resistant to the effects of rudeness in positions where a rude encounter is more likely to occur; or initiate certain workplace interventions, including establishing a workplace culture of deference and mutual respect designed to promote greater civility among employees.
Although the current set of remedies is limited, several studies examining various intervention strategies and situation-specific contextual factors are currently underway. It is expected that forthcoming findings may provide organizations with additional answers and actionable tools to limit the extent to which its workers are exposed to rudeness on- and off-the-job.
Robert T. Burrus, Jr., Ph.D., is the dean of the Cameron School of Business at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, named in June 2015. Burrus joined the UNCW faculty in 1998. Prior to his current position, Burrus was interim dean, associate dean of undergraduate studies and the chair of the department of economics and finance. Burrus earned a Ph.D. and a master’s degree in economics from the University of Virginia and a bachelor’s degree in mathematical economics from Wake Forest University. The Cameron School of Business has approximately 60 full-time faculty members and 20 administrative and staff members. The AACSB-accredited business school currently enrolls approximately 2,000 undergraduate students in three degree programs and 200 graduate students in four degree programs. The school also houses the prestigious Cameron Executive Network, a group of more than 200 retired and practicing executives that provide one-on-one mentoring for Cameron students. To learn more about the Cameron School of Business, please visit http://csb.uncw.edu/. Questions and comments can be sent to [email protected].
Jenny Callison - May 18, 2022
Johanna F. Still - May 17, 2022
Cece Nunn - May 17, 2022
Cece Nunn - May 18, 2022
Johanna F. Still - May 18, 2022
NC Lumber & Supply was first born by a space problem: Hordes of East Coast Lumber Co.’s unwanted wood kept piling up, taking up more and mor...
The income from the recent sale of its interest in financial technology firm Finxact presents a variety of opportunities for Live Oak Bancsh...
The Wilmington-based company formed as a joint venture between Live Oak Bank and Atlanta-based First Data Corp....