Giving Rudeness a Pass: A Behavioral Analysis

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article explores the persistence of workplace incivility despite increased focus on professionalism and well-being in modern organizations. It examines the psychological factors enabling rude behavior to evade accountability, including its often subtle and ambiguous nature, power dynamics that shield higher-status offenders, and cognitive biases that distort observers' interpretations. The article presents research-based strategies for organizations to address these issues, including establishing clear civility standards, implementing anonymous reporting systems, and conducting bystander intervention training. Through case studies of companies like Eli Lilly and Verizon, the article demonstrates how organizations can transform workplace culture by taking holistic, learning-based approaches to confronting incivility rather than implementing superficial solutions, ultimately enhancing employee well-being, performance, and retention.

Despite our increasing emphasis on professionalism and employee well-being in today's workplace, incivility still manages to persist. More specifically, certain offending individuals often get away with disrespectful, insensitive, or otherwise rude behavior directed at coworkers without consequence. Why is this the case? And how can organizations work to address it?

Through exploring relevant behavioral research and considering real industry examples, today we will provide insight into why rude behavior slips under the radar at times, along with practical recommendations for fostering a more civil environment.

Why Rude Behavior Persists

Several psychological factors help explain how and why rude conduct can evade accountability in organizations. A key reason is that rude behavior is often subtle and ambiguous in nature, making it difficult to pinpoint and define as truly unacceptable (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Rude actions may be passive-aggressive rather than openly hostile, such as giving someone the silent treatment or making dismissive eyerolls. This ambiguity provides rude individuals cover to downplay their actions as harmless or claim they were "taken the wrong way."

Another contributing dynamic involves the power and status differentials that naturally exist within work hierarchies. Because those higher in the pecking order are granted more authority and leniency by others lower on the totem pole, rude actions from managers or senior executives are prone to be rationalized away or left unchallenged out of fear of reprisal (Cortina et al., 2001). Lower-level employees are also less likely to formally report disrespectful treatment from superiors due to doubts that their complaints would be taken seriously.

A final consideration pertains to observers' interpretation biases when witnessing uncivil behavior between others. Due to the fundamental attribution error, we are prone to attribute another's rude actions more to internal character flaws rather than situational factors. This primes observers to view the target of rudeness as somehow deserving of poor treatment or exaggerating its impact (Medin, 1989). Such cognitive tendencies distort our evaluation of situations and allow truly unacceptable behavior to slip by without remedy.

Addressing Rudeness Through Organizational Avenues

Given these psychological influences shielding rude behavior, what measures can organizations implement to curb its acceptance and encourage appropriate accountability? Several research-informed strategies hold promise.

Enacting Clear Civility Standards

The first step is establishing crystal-clear behavioral guidelines detailing exactly what constitutes respectful versus disrespectful conduct in the workplace, complete with specific examples (Pearson et al., 2001). Having a defined civility policy with built-in accountability, such as potential disciplinary action for violations, removes much of the ambiguity surrounding rude actions. This communicates to all employees that uncivil conduct will not be condoned.

Facilitating Anonymous Reporting

To offset power differentials and address fears of retaliation, organizations should offer anonymous reporting avenues for employees to discreetly flag incidents of uncivil treatment from any level without fear of identifying themselves (Estes & Wang, 2008). Well-known companies who have implemented anonymous hotlines or online forms include Intel, Microsoft, and Disney to foster a climate where concerns from all are heard without prejudice.

Conducting Bystander Training

Training programs educating employees on how to appropriately intervene as "active bystanders" when witnessing uncivil encounters can counteract interpretation biases that allow rudeness to persist (Cortina & Magley, 2009). Such training emphasizes techniques like directly but respectfully addressing inappropriate behavior, supporting victims by checking in on their well-being after the fact, and reporting serious issues through the proper channels. An informed, empowered bystander culture reinforces civility across the board.

Taking Action Against Rudeness in Practice

To bring the discussion of rude workplace behavior full circle, considering real industry examples provides pragmatic insight into navigating such issues at the ground level.

A case in point is pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, which several years ago faced a lawsuit from a manager alleging she endured ongoing uncivil treatment from her boss, including mean-spirited emails and exclusion from important projects (Boushey & O'Brien, 2011). While the suit was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of severe damages, Eli Lilly saw an opportunity: the company worked with outside experts to pilot a new Respect in the Workplace training initiative firm-wide emphasizing accountability, bystander aid, and alternative dispute resolution.

Feedback indicated the multi-pronged program fostered greater employee confidence in standing up against rude actions respectfully and using proper channels rather than resignation or escalated conflict when issues arose. By openly addressing its shortcomings and investing in long-term culture change, Eli Lilly transformed a legal setback into an organizational strengths gains. Their success stresses how companies serious about civility must take a holistic, learning-based approach versus surface-level fixes.

In another instance, Verizon encountered employee unrest after perceived uneven disciplinary actions allowed certain supervisors' chronically rude conduct toward subordinates to continue unchecked (Mirvis et al., 2009). Through collaborative union-management task forces, the broadband and media giant worked to better define ambiguous behavioral standards, bolster supervisors' interpersonal skills through coaching, implement anonymous incident reporting tools, and educate all employees on active bystander skills through role plays and workshops. While cultural shifts take time, Verizon's multifaceted solution addressed identified contributors to workplace incivility head-on.

Conclusion

Rude behavior in the workplace is a complex issue with roots deeply embedded in human psychology and situational dynamics. For this reason, uncivil actions can easily fly under the radar or be rationalized away by offenders and observers alike if left unaddressed. However, research demonstrates organizations serious about fostering respect and professionalism can make headway through comprehensive efforts like enacting clear standards, empowering anonymous reporting, conducting bystander training programs, and taking a holistic, learning-based approach to challenges as they arise. Real industry examples further emphasize the importance of collaborative solutions tailored to an organization's unique needs. With commitment to civility as an ongoing journey rather than destination, companies stand to boost not only employee well-being but also performance, retention and reputation in the long run.

References

1. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of management Review, 24(3), 452-471.

2. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80.

3. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American psychologist, 44(12), 1469.

4. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2001). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.

5. Estes, B., & Wang, J. (2008). Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218-240.

6. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272–288.

7. Boushey, H., & O'Brien, M. (2011). The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink. RosettaBooks.

8. Mirvis, P., Herrmann, J., Roth, G., & Sanders, W. (2009). Transformation in the front line: Overcoming resistance to change. In C. Worley & A. T. Lawler (Eds.), Management reset: Organizing for sustainable effectiveness (pp. 209–234). John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Giving Rudeness a Pass: A Behavioral Analysis. Human Capital Leadership Review, 22(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.22.4.4