Richard Reeves
It’s official – men make the rudest bosses. When it comes to yelling, phone-slamming, name-calling and blaming, male managers are way ahead of their female counterparts.
In the biggest-ever survey of workplace behaviour men were found to be behind 70% of incidents of corporate rudeness. Women are more egalitarian when they become irritable; while men are seven times more likely to be rude to a subordinate, women are as likely to be disrespectful to their superiors as to their underlings.
The most often mentioned examples of “office rage” in the survey of 1 400 workers were: being shouted or sworn at, being sent nasty e-mail messages or notes, being called a name and being blamed for the failures of others.
“Our goal is simply to make people aware of this,” said Christine Pearson, a professor in management studies at the University of Carolina business school and co-author of the study.
She said four out of five of the workers polled felt incivilities were on the increase. Stressed-out executives and overworked staff are swearing at each other as never before. Even though most of those on the receiving end were upset, only one in five answered back, with the remainder keeping mum for fear of an escalation in hostilities.
“We are seeing more and more stress in the workplace, with people working longer hours and adjusting to new technologies,” agreed Nick Isles from the Institute of Personnel and Development. “We need measures to reduce excesses at the workplace that can lead to this sort of incident.That is one reason we strongly support limits on working hours, for example.”
Pearson pinned the blame for the rise in “office rage” on corporate downsizing, growing pressure to “do more with less” and the rise of electronic communications. “Electronic mail allows managers, in particular, to send hostile and demeaning messages to staff, without the need to actually confront them physically.”
Pearson said people at the receiving end of rude behaviour were less efficient. More than half of those subjected to rudeness said they lost work time worrying about the incident, and a fifth deliberately reduced their work effort in disgust. Rude colleagues were often thought to be excellent at their own jobs, but they were also seen as arrogant, lacking respect for others, emotionally unresponsive to problems and “sore losers”.
Pearson said rudeness rippled out through an organisation and beyond, with 94% of recipients telling another member of staff, the majority telling family members and almost half reporting incidents to non-work friends.
Jane Dutton, from the business school of the University of Michigan, said firms generated “emotional capital”, which was depleted by incivility – with clear results on the bottom line. “We’re still kids,” she said. “If we can get away with it, we will.”
Dutton said the links between the work environment and indicators of employee loyalty, commitment and productivity showed this was not a “fluffy” issue.
“These everyday encounters can either improve the stock of emotional capital or deplete it. It is better to be nice – but, more importantly, don’t be nasty if you want people to stick around and work hard.”
One manager, however, said there was a danger of creating “sanitised” workplaces. “There are far more important things to worry about, such as job security,” he said.
“In the same way that chivvying someone along on the sports field can improve performance, so a competitive atmosphere can help at work. Maybe we need more rudeness, not less.”