How Rudeness Stops People from Working Together

By Christine Porath
Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2017/01/how-rudeness-stops-people-from-
working-together)
January 20, 2017

Incivility can fracture a team, destroying collaboration, splintering members’ sense of

psychological safety, and hampering team effectiveness. Belittling and demeaning
comments, insults, backbiting, and other rude behavior can deflate confidence, sink trust,
and erode helpfulness — even for those who aren’t the target of these behaviors.

A recent study documented how incivility diminishes collaboration and performance in

medical settings. Twenty-four medical teams from four neonatal intensive care units in
Israel were invited to a training workshop designed to improve quality of care. As part of
the training, the teams needed to treat a premature infant whose condition suddenly
deteriorated due to a serious intestinal illness (it was only a simulation; no infant’s health
was endangered). Staff had to identify and diagnose the condition and administer proper
treatment, including CPR. Teams were told that an expert from the United States would be
watching them remotely (with video) and would occasionally comment and advise them.
That “expert” was a member of the research team. Half the teams received messages from a
neutral expert who spoke about the importance of training and practice using simulations
but did not comment on their work quality. The other half received insulting messages
about their performance and the “poor quality” of Israeli medical care.

Collaboration

Researchers filmed these simulations and had objective judges evaluate them. The teams
exposed to rudeness displayed lower capabilities in all diagnostic and procedural
performance metrics, markedly diminishing the infant’s chances of survival. This was
mainly because teams exposed to rudeness didn’t share information as readily and stopped
seeking help from their teammates.

I frequently see that situation echoed in my research: People who lack a sense of
psychological safety — the feeling that the team environment is a trusting, respectful, and
safe place to take risks — shut down, often without realizing it. They are less likely to seek
or accept feedback and less likely to experiment, discuss errors, and speak up about
potential or actual problems. Even without an intimidator in the room, they work in a cloud
of negativity and are unable to do their best.

Once incivility occurs, it’s easy for negative thoughts to seep into people’s heads and stay
there, translating into negative behavior. In experiments I’ve done, I’ve found that once
people are exposed to rudeness, they are three times less likely to help others and their
willingness to share drops by more than half. It makes sense: When someone behaves
poorly or offensively, bad feelings spread and behaviors escalate, sometimes becoming
aggressive or dysfunctional.

Even relatively minor incidents — when people thoughtlessly put down others, for
instance, or publicly question their capabilities — leave an imprint, whittling away at them,
their performance, and their well-being. As a mathematical model developed by Yale
psychologists Adam Bear and David Rand shows, people who are typically surrounded by
jerks learn intuitively to be selfish and to not deliberate over their actions. They wind up
acting selfishly even when cooperating would pay off because they don’t stop to think.

A little civility goes a long way, enhancing a team’s performance by increasing the amount
of psychological safety that people feel. One experiment of mine showed that psychological
safety was 35% higher when people were offered a suggestion civilly than uncivilly (i.e., in
an interaction marked by inconsiderate interruption). Other research has shown that
psychological safety improves general team performance. Studying more than 180 of its
active teams, Google found that who was on a team mattered less than how team members
interacted, structured their work, and viewed their contributions. Employees on teams
with more psychological safety were more likely to make use of their teammates’ ideas and
less likely to leave Google. They generated more revenue for the company and were rated
as “effective” twice as often by executives.

Leaders set the tone. A study of cross-functional product teams revealed that when leaders
treated members of their team well and fairly, the team members were more productive
individually and as a team. They also were more likely to go above and beyond their job
requirements. It all starts at the top. When leaders are civil, it increases performance and
creativity, allows for early mistake detection and the initiative to take actions, and
reduces emotional exhaustion.

Civility helps teams to function better in large part by helping employees feel safer,
happier, and better. In my study of over 20,000 employees, those who felt respected by
their leader reported 92% greater focus and prioritization and 55% more engagement.

By creating a civil climate, you can enable greater collaboration marked by people who
reciprocate respectful behavior. Recent research by Google’s Kathryn Dekas and colleagues
shows how the climate affects organizational citizenship behaviors. If you want people to
collaborate better and give more, consider the climate, the leader’s role modeling, and the
team norms.

It’s important to note that you can’t simply impose civility. Engage employees in an ongoing
conversation, defining precisely what civility means. You will garner more support and
empower employees to hold one another accountable for civil behavior by involving them
in the process.

Organizations of all kinds can benefit from talking about civility with employees. In the
Irvine, California, office of law firm Bryan Cave, managing partner Stuart Price and I led
employees through an exercise in which they could define collective norms. We asked
employees: “Who do you want to be?” And we asked them to name rules for which they
were willing to hold one another accountable — what norms were right for their
organization. In just over an hour, employees generated and agreed on 10 norms. The firm
embraced these norms and bound them into a “civility code,” which they prominently
display in their lobby. As Price attests to, the civility code was directly responsible for the
firm being ranked number one among Orange County’s best places to work.

It’s not enough to frame norms; you have to train employees to understand and respect
them. When asked why they were uncivil, more than 25% of people in a survey I conducted
blamed their organization for not providing them with the basic skills they needed, such as
listening and feedback skills. If your employees aren’t behaving well, and you’ve already
gone through the trouble of hammering home the organization’s civility message, ask
yourself, “Have I equipped them to succeed?” Don’t assume everyone knows how to be
civil; many people never learned the basic skills.

Some leading companies offer formal civility training. Microsoft’s popular “Precision
Questioning” class teaches participants to question their own ideas; develop approaches to
healthy, constructive criticism; and act with emotional agility even in tense situations. At a
hospital in Los Angeles, temperamental doctors are required to attend “charm school” to
decrease their brashness and reduce the potential for lawsuits. The charm school teaches
doctors that they must set the tone for their medical residents.

Paying attention to your team’s level of civility is worth the effort. It enhances collaboration
and performance. Consider adjusting norms as needed or providing training if members
are missing the mark.

Christine Porath is a professor of management at Georgetown University and the author

of Mastering Civility: A Manifesto for the Workplace.