Combatting Workplace Incivility: It Begins and Ends with Communication

Last month, we learned some unhappy news about the workplace: the societal discord we experience in the public square has seeped into our companies. Now it’s time to face facts and move from this worrying news to strategics and tactics to counteract it. The data showed that:

• 91% of employees have witnessed or experienced political clashes at work.
• 51% actively avoid colleagues with different political views.
• 93% believe leadership’s political bias influences workplace policies and promotions.

It’s important to understand what’s going on, so that we can turn the page from knowledge into action.

What can we do?

Communication is at the heart of all of it. Words can be used either as swords or shields. It’s incumbent upon all of us not only to think about what we want to communicate but also what words we will use to do so.

“Communicating is fundamental to everything we do, yet we often fail to assess whether we are maximizing our effectiveness. Did we communicate clearly? How did our communications influence the understanding of others? Did we achieve the desired result?” wrote Peter Rietkerk, General Manager, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in a kind comment about my work.

Time to Turn to Solutions:

Emotions: How Do We Handle Them at Work?

We humans are a bundle of many things. We are intellectual, rational, and emotional beings. A good rule to follow in the workplace is that “it’s okay to have emotions, since we all do, and it’s okay to describe those emotions. However, it’s not okay to act them out.”

There are good reasons for this. It helps to avoid saying something that we later regret. (If we do give in and say something regrettable, apologize, since we all make mistakes.) It also avoids hurting others and allows for thinking and rethinking an initial tendency to use fighting words. It allows for the rational part of who we are to overtake the emotional part. Words can be swords or shields, and the words we chose can unite or divide us. Time for unification.

The language heard in the public square is often used as swords to divide us, by appealing to base fear, loathing, and hatred, rather than to unite us. Sadly, when acted upon, these fighting words can, and have, resulted in violence. The fact that this state of affairs is now seeping into the workplace should sound the alarm.

Case Study

Beatrice Benefits Administrator went into Hillary HR VP’s office to complain about a work assignment. “Why should I have to do this? It’s not in my area of responsibility, and besides, I don’t have the time.” Hillary repeated that when she gave the assignment to Beatrice, she said she would also reassign some of Beatrice’s current work to enable her to do the job. Hillary reminded Beatrice that she was selected to complete the project because of her technical expertise.

Beatrice again stated that she didn’t want to do the assignment and besides had too much other work. Hillary responded neutrally and in the same manner as before.

The third time Beatrice leveled her complaint at Hillary, she added, “Besides, you don’t like me, so you’re setting me up for failure.”

At this point, having stated the facts several times, Hillary was starting to get angry. Afraid that she might act out those emotions by saying something that both would regret, Hillary declared, “Beatrice, you need to leave my office now.”

Beatrice stayed seated, refusing to leave Hillary’s office, so Hillary left.

That night, Hillary thought long and hard about what had happened, about her role in the transaction, and whether she would have changed anything. The fact was, Hillary didn’t like Beatrice. Hillary contemplated whether to assign the project to someone else and what to do next.

She called her outside advisor, explained the situation, and asked for advice. Hillary’s advisor agreed with her handling of the situation. Both agreed that Hillary should discuss what happened with Beatrice the following day. She should specifically reiterate the job expectations and address Beatrice’s seeming refusal to do the job. Beatrice would be insubordinate if she failed or refused to complete the assignment.

The next day, Hillary called Beatrice into her office and stated,“Beatrice, I asked you to leave my office last night because I was angry. I am still angry now and let me tell you why.” Hillary then reiterated the nature and scope of the assignment, her willingness to reassign other work that was on Beatrice’s plate, and that Beatrice’s failure or refusal to complete the assignment would be insubordination for which she would be disciplined up to and including termination of employment.

Beatrice sat quietly, unable to dismiss Hillary’s cool, calm demeanor and description of her anger. Nor could Beatrice minimize or trivialize the importance and impact of the content of the meeting. In the end, Beatrice did the project to Hillary’s satisfaction.

What Worked

1. Hillary HR VP explained the facts surrounding her decision to assign the project to Beatrice.
2. After repeating herself in a calm and neutral manner several times, Hillary recognized that she was beginning to get angry, and as a result, might say something that would have been fueled by emotion, not logic or the facts.
3. Hillary adjourned the meeting, allowing her to think about what happened, to seek advice, to be strategic, by considering the goal – to have Beatrice complete the project.
4. Because Hillary in fact did not like Beatrice, she sought advice from her outside advisor, who confirmed that the assignment was appropriately made.
5. “The ball was now in Beatrice’s court.” Either she would complete the assignment or if she failed or refused to do so, be found to be insubordinate and face disciplinary action.

Why Did This Work?

1. Hillary described being angry in a calm manner, rather than acting it out.
2. This proved to have had the intended effect on Beatrice, who was not able to dismiss or trivialize Hillary’s leadership.
3. In the end, the goal was achieved, and Beatrice completed the job to Hillary’s satisfaction.

What if? Hillary had given into her anger. Think about what could have gone wrong. What if ater patiently repeating herself three times and asking Beatrice to leave her office, Hillary blurted out in a loud voice, “Listen, Beatrice, I’ve had about as much as I can take putting up with your attitude. I’m not discussing this any longer. Do the assignment or else.”

Beatrice would have felt vindicated, saying, “See, I’m right; you just gave me this assignment because you don’t like me.” Worse yet, she would have dismissed Hillary and Hillary’s authority to give her an assignment.

Tips to Avoid Falling into the Trap of Emotional Communication in the Workplace*

1. Use facts when communicating (provable acts or events vs. opinions).
2. Select neutral words.
3. Do not communicate when angry: you can always come back later.
4. When unsure, check with a trusted advisor.

*This is a summary of events that transpired when I was in the Hillary role. As the saying goes, “The names were changed to protect the innocent.”

Further Reading

For more insights on effective communication when emotions run high, read my book Courageous Communication in Turbulent Times: A Practical Guide to Leadership