Gregory P. Crawford is President of Miami University of Ohio.
Ten years ago, the Harvard Business Review reported that incivility in the workplace was on the rise—half of workers surveyed in 2011 said they received rude treatment every week.
The review cataloged the costs to the company: Nearly half of those surveyed said they worked less and spent less time at work; more than one-third deliberately decreased their work quality; one-fourth took out their frustrations on customers; and nearly four-fifths felt less committed to the company. In an experiment, 30% were less creative after being treated rudely. Customers who observe uncivil behavior are far more likely to take their business elsewhere.
Today, the problem is exacerbated by political polarization, social media and the lingering effects of the Covid-19 disruption. Human resources workers and company leaders report that many previously civil employees “have lost their filters,” accelerating damage to the business and beyond. A recent repeat of the survey by Christine Porath with the Harvard Business Review confirms the worsening environment and says negativity in the workplace can result from increased interaction with technology.
On social media, the victim’s remoteness and the perpetrator’s anonymity often seem to encourage personal attacks, including name-calling and demonization, rather than engagement with their ideas, which the discipline of logic calls the ad hominem fallacy. Reasonable comments are unfairly labeled, caricatured and lumped into disfavored categories—the “straw man” fallacy.
A recent survey reported the most common forms of incivility in the workplace include being ignored and having one’s judgment questioned. One in 20 reported extreme incivility—being yelled at, cursed at or targeted with co-workers’ jokes. Advice for addressing such rudeness in person involves manager support and worker resilience.
How can companies address these behaviors?
The university where I’m president focuses on advancing dialogue to educate and promote inclusive learning and leadership practices. Our liberal arts resources, including our liberal arts core required of students in all majors, provide rich, ancient, modern resources to combat the problem effectively.
One tool is the approach to dialogue practiced by the Greek philosopher Socrates more than 2,400 years ago and embedded in the pedagogy of many of our disciplines. It instills habits of thought and action that accelerate learning, personal growth and group unity. The creativity, ingenuity and innovation vital to modern success require collegial brainstorming and planning conversations where fresh ideas are welcomed.
That involves using evidence and focusing on the ideas, not summarily dismissing or attacking their source: Don’t attack the messenger. This calls for effective dialogue.
What is dialogue?
Dialogue here is a verbal encounter between two or more people, usually to share information or advance an idea so they can learn. Organizations can only advance with honest dialogue about ideas. Its most important feature, as educator Paulo Freire pointed out, is that dialogue is “mediated by the world.”
The people in dialogue are not working on each other. They’re working with each other on investigating some piece of the world—a book, an idea, a specimen of nature, a new product, a business proposal, etc. They believe their co-investigation can lead to greater understanding and a better world. Dialogue is not a debate to be won or lost but a shared conversation where both can benefit and advance together. Participants might start with different, even opposing, views on the topic but are open to new ideas and possible synthesis for more profound insight.
Such an approach focuses on the shared object, which keeps the conversation professional and productive. A team leader who directs attention to the goal—say, developing a marketing campaign, new product or strategic direction—can ensure that ideas are evaluated on their merits. Personal competition doesn’t derail the process, and progress is steady.
How can organizations practice effective dialogue?
Socratic dialogue usually refers to a teacher’s approach to guiding students to learn; many university professors practice it. However, the dialogue partners can contribute equally to the investigation, including in the workplace. The Socratic method still applies: Proceed with questions that elicit deeper inquiry and reflection and stay open to more than one possible solution. At every step, avoid misunderstanding by explicitly stating the new shared understanding to ensure everyone stays on the same page.
Leaders of organizations can practice the approach they might have experienced in college classrooms, focusing on questions and rejecting ad hominem or “straw man” arguments. The content is factual, evidence-based and mutually agreed upon. Personal attacks, rude asides, unfair caricatures, divisive jokes, grandstanding and condescending tones are not permitted.
In an organization, leaders can model positive inquiry, welcome new answers and questions and critique the content of ideas, not the people who offer them. This excludes “leading” questions that a person might use to influence others toward their predetermined conclusion while appearing open. In my experience, the approach fosters a team culture that pursues the truth, builds camaraderie and advances collegiality and productivity.
What is the impact?
Conclusions reached by such team dialogue are likely to be more creative, forward-looking and successful than the outcomes of a competitive assertion and defense of individuals’ preconceived preferences. Because everyone is focused on the mediating topic, problem or project, they can set aside their opinions about the other contributors and concentrate on solutions and best practices.
Moreover, each team member knows their ideas have been taken seriously and incorporated into the conclusion where appropriate. Everyone can buy into the shared outcome because there are no winners and losers.
Organizations pursuing this approach can engage local professors who practice it in their classrooms for guidance, perhaps at a lunchtime seminar on a chosen topic. The habits of openness, questioning, listening and objective focus can enhance the larger culture’s ordinary conversations, transdisciplinary collaborations, interdepartmental communications, customer service, inclusive excellence, strategic and business planning and inclusive leadership.
Leveraged in engagement with unhappy customers or stakeholders, I’ve found open dialogue can calm emotions, uncover solutions and boost respect for the organization’s professionalism. People can carry this habit of civil discourse into their homes, neighborhoods, communities, social interactions and even social media exchanges. Ancient wisdom about human interaction can elevate the civil discourse necessary to renew our society today.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Read the full article here
