Two Mindsets That Can Create Rude or Polite Coworkers
journals.aom.org
journals.aom.org
Sure, effective communication could also come across rude in certain situations, but for most people being rude is not an active choice they make but something they feel entitled to.
The rudest people I worked with typically also had some sort of insecurity, feelings of inadequacy, were overwhelmed by the role within their organization or with the workload they received etc. Being rude then can feel like a way to "fight back", only that it will usually not hit the people that are at fault/the root of the problem.
This is all no excuse, being rude to innocent people is typically due to a lack of empathy. That colleague who insecurely asks a (somewhat naive) question about IT does not deserve to be treated rudely, just like you yourself would not like to be treated rudely when you had a (to them: naive) question to legal or HR.
Sure if the same person keeps asking 10 times and it is the same answer each time, you could get stinky. But even there humour is superior to rudeness, because you feel better after it and it serves the same purpose of hinting that the other person might wanna get a grip.
I left the meeting feeling like "ok cool, no action to take then, we can all agree that we want X", instead of "shit, we've been doing Y instead of X, we really need to change that".
> That colleague who insecurely asks a (somewhat naive) question about IT does not deserve to be treated rudely, just like you yourself would not like to be treated rudely when you had a (to them: naive) question to legal or HR.
What did the colleague do before making their way to my desk or Teams / Slack / Chime / Whatever chat?
Did they search this in their search engine of choice? Did they break out their manual - digital or print - and thumb / arrow key through it? Did they use the "Find" feature in their PDF program?
If someone comes to me and says, "Hey, cbozeman, I have a question about <insert thing here>... I tried searching for the answer, but I didn't find anything really useful, and I couldn't find what I needed in the manual..."
If you do that, you will have my undivided attention for as long as it takes to resolve your issue or answer your question.
If, however, you did like one of our interns who emailed me saying, "I need access to \\OurServer\Training Committee. Big Boss says I have to watch training videos."
"You aren't authorized to have access to that directory - it's even in the name - it's for the Training Committee only."
"You're holding up my training, this is important, I have to do this!"
"You can go to him and tell him that I told you, I'm not giving you access to that directory, you're not a member of the Training Committee and it's for their use only."
Fast forward to later in the day and Big Boss swings by my office to let me know that Intern actually meant \\OurServer\Firm\Training Materials\Intern Training Videos. I asked him, "How do you know that?"
"Because that's the UPN that I emailed to her in her onboarding email."
"So she can't read?"
"She can't read..."
"Well, could be worse, at least she knows how to use File Explorer to even try to input the file path..."
"Laughs."
Yes, I will be rude to you if you are lazy and don't read. I will be rude to you if you do not care and do not want to learn. Every single person we hire - Hell, every single person every Fortune 500 company hires - must have "Basic" Computer Skills. It's right there in the job description for any job that sits in front of a computer. Basic Computer Skills. And just so I didn't lose my mind, I wrote an email to my old professor at my alma mater, and I asked him - after some pleasantries and asking how he was doing, "If you had to break down what entails "basic computer skills" in the year 2023, what would that look like?"
Here is his response:
"Hi cbozeman,
I'm glad you're doing well in your life and career... yadda yadda blah blah...
Here is PDF of a page of my newest introductory textbook that we use in IT and BIS courses regarding, "Basic Computer Skills". Hopefully this is instructive."
It was. Here is his list of what constitutes, "Basic Computer Skills":
When companies mention "Basic Computing Skills" in job descriptions or requirements, they typically refer to a set of foundational skills in using computers that are considered essential for most office or administrative roles. These skills usually include:
1. Proficiency in Operating Systems: Basic knowledge of operating systems like Windows, macOS, or Linux. This includes understanding how to start and shut down a computer, use the desktop interface, open and close applications, and manage files and folders.
2. Word Processing Skills: Ability to use word processing software like Microsoft Word or Google Docs. This includes creating, editing, formatting, and printing documents.
3. Spreadsheet Skills: Familiarity with spreadsheet software such as Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets. Skills might include creating and editing spreadsheets, using basic formulas, and understanding how to sort and filter data.
4. Email Communication: Ability to use email platforms like Outlook or Gmail. This includes composing, sending, and organizing emails, as well as understanding email etiquette.
5. Internet Navigation and Research: Competence in using a web browser, navigating websites, and using search engines effectively to find information.
6. Basic Understanding of Computer Hardware: Understanding the basic components of a computer, such as the monitor, keyboard, mouse, and printer.
7. Data Entry: Ability to enter data into various systems or databases accurately and efficiently.
8. Understanding of Basic Security Practices: Knowledge of basic cybersecurity practices such as creating strong passwords and identifying common online threats like phishing.
9. Use of Collaboration Tools: Familiarity with collaboration and communication tools like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or Zoom, especially relevant in remote or hybrid work environments.
10. Presentation Software: Basic skills in creating presentations using software like Microsoft PowerPoint or Google Slides.
These skills are considered basic because they are often necessary for efficiently performing a wide range of tasks in the modern workplace, regardless of the specific job role.
Personally, I believe it a sign of immaturity to purposefully be rude in the workplace. Or that you don't have a life.
Simply explain that the information they need should be in their onboarding email, and maybe mention to make sure to read it carefully. You can also offer any other advice that might help them be more effective. Then move on. Being rude as a tactic for behavior modification can have some unintended consequences - like resentment, or a toxic culture.
How much hand-holding do you need? College is supposed to be for high-performing, high-IQ individuals. I realize that is no longer the case, and I realize that has not been the case for some time, but guess what.
You don't "skim" professional communications. You read them. And you read for comprehension and understanding.
I forget where and when I saw it - it's been awhile back, and I think it was in Fortune magazine, or maybe Forbes, but one of the primary skills that both United States military officers and Fortune 500 company managers wished more prospective employees had is greater reading and writing ability. It's no fucking surprise though, given we've allowed communications to devolve into emojis instead of well-thought out sentences.
I'll be blunt: you're acting like an idiot. You gain nothing, you help no one, you create a shit environment, you do not contribute to prevent the same issue from happening again, you institutionalize unhelpfulness and petty behavior, and to top things off you insult and belittle colleagues who had the audacity to look your way for help.
There is a reason why companies filter out candidates based on soft skills or lack thereof. It's because people who act like your example are a net loss to the company, and drive down the company's productivity by being hostile towards people who reach out to them for help. All companies are better off without antisocial idiots who unload their frustrations on other workers. Miserable people who try to compensate by making everyone around them even more miserable, and any company does well avoiding them and the cultural cancer they create and spread.
You are an idiot. No matter how smart you might actually be. Coddling creates weak people who cannot resolve matters on their own, and this matter was completely within her power to resolve. Were it that she did not get the email, or that she was given the wrong file path, I would be more than happy to assist her.
Furthermore, she never once mentioned the actual file path, or thought to forward the email to me for review so I could actually help her.
She took zero initiative other than to complain to me, then provided me a marginal amount of incomplete information.
This is not the behavior of a so-called "professional".
I'll be further blunt: The world would be better off without people like you creating more adult children that are totally incapable of resolving even the most germane issues without totally giving up and blowing up at the people around them. Furthermore, given that I am several steps above her in the chain of command, she should have gone to her direct report and not me in the first place.
My job involves solving very real problems with very real stakes, not pointing out to a 22 year old adult that they need to thoroughly read their emails and not skim over them.
On top of that, the critique that I have with the article is that we should combine both, but I can relate that most of the rude people are classified as Mechanistic, using the parameters of the article.
That's why I disagree with the premise that you should combine, in my experience the amount of Humanistic people should be at least 8:1 for each Mechanistic, with strict and top-down principles and policies that dictate what is acceptable or not.
What I see in most of the working places is that, when you have a single default-rude person (mislabed as Mechanistic) the blast radius of people being shut down is way greater, and on the long run tanks everyone productivity.
The rudest people I know aren't even trying to be rude, their communication style just is what it is. Once you realize this you just let it slide off your back and suddenly you're able to get along with them just fine.
A lot of people run around proclaiming how good they are at communicating but if they were really that good they'd be able to effectively communicate with others who are not like them.
On the flip side, if you're treating something as a crisis when the person trying to help knows there isn't one, you're putting undue pressure and stress on someone and hurting both parties in the process.
The fundamental problem is inconsistent and inaccurate assessments of the situation. People are attached to their mindset and are often too stubborn to re-evaluate. The solution presented only shows concessions on one side. I'd add that if someone else thinks a situation is dire and you don't, you should try to understand their perspective better rather than immediately considering them rude and dismissing their concerns.
People are bad at identifying bad behavior in themselves, but they can sometimes see that same behavior when others exhibit it. Whether they can then put this together into genuine introspection and growth is another story.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/01/07/yanss-podcast-015-i-...
Performing medical procedures without letting patients know what’s happening
Ignoring patients’ complaints about pain
Taking pictures of patients’ injuries for documentation without informing the patient
Behaviors reflecting a humanistic mindset include doctors:
Comforting patients verbally or physically
Covering patients with a blanket after procedures are completed
Complying with patients’ requests to relieve discomfort, such as adjusting bed height or shifting medical tubes"
Absolutely!
Some of the ways my manager has been mechanistic: setting OKRs out of thin air that he can't explain how it ties to any business goal, we just have it. Can't explain why something needs to be out of the door by a specific date, just gotta have it. Why the CTO asks to take caution during holidays but manager is giving negative ratings to people who listened to the CTO. Ignoring engineer explaination of risk for their aspirational timelines.
I could go on. But poor managers are often the root cause of poor execution because managers forget that they are working with actual intelligent adults and that filling up context lets these adults make rational choices or to explain why certain things can't work.
To be fair, my manager experiences the same from his boss and all the way up.
When I became a manager, I found the same. Managers need to know what's going on broadly (which is doable, takes work, and some managers do) and to not shirk from pointing out misalignments across projects (which is harder, involves stepping on toes such that your project is better but your day longer, and most managers do not do). I don't think I ever struggled with the idea that this was hard, but I've always despised when my managers/PMs wouldn't do their one part and voice it to the next level above.
I'm coaching someone in a different time zone ( 7 hours difference).
I tend to be effective and I also don't want them to feel without work.
There are some things that I consider weird with him, concerning his experience level. But after a talk internally, it was mentioned to ignore that until the onboarding is done ( different backgrounds).
Now, it's possible that my priorities related to him came across as rude.
So yeah, having a first "get to know" each other chat after 2 months ( 1 feature is down, but there should be improvements for the next feature socially wise).
Anyone came across to a similar situations or books regarding these things that they found valuable?
But concentration has a dark side. When you focus on one thing you ignore 1000 other things. To the point of blindness even. And it can become a habit.
Such a creature, clear-sighted in his software work but blind to all else. That "all else" being a world of emotion and nuance and nameless fuzzy things.
That creature must surely be an asshole.
If not, it turns around the point you're trying to make about the fuzzy world of emotions and nuance upside down in a bad way. And going for 'creature' as a stylistic choice doesn't help.
TL;DR: When you invest in shared respect & people know each other, it's fine & probably important! to get more thin lipped during a crisis in order to get to a solution. No need to be impolite though, just focused.
When you invest in relationships with your coworkers, in times of crisis it's fine to "cut to the chase" and focus on high priority tasks, and sometimes naturally someone with expertise takes the lead and the other team members can fall into "support roles" and help them get their work done.
With our team it is a kind of "enhanced focus tunnel" where the team helps someone to debug a system or find a solution, while sometimes suggesting changes of strategy, holes in a theory or overlooked avenues of exploration.
But at the same time the "leader" can follow his instincts and will generally be respected for his approach, even if he drops some suggestions, and also be left alone by others with other tasks until the crisis is averted or can be deprioritised.
If there's only ever crisis mode at work, that's not good, and will not lead to good outcomes in the long run.
Then it's important to give - to take - for oneself and others time to breathe, to relax, to brainstorm, to draw out the current situation, and to find strategies out of the permanent crisis mode.
Unless you like the permanent adrenaline, but I don't think good systems are created and maintained that way.
I can relate to that as a Latin American working in Europe; in the USA specifically this balance is way easier to find and there are more checks and balances.
My first year here I came from this Humanistic Mindset which is the standard in America as a whole; however being in EU I found out that most of the people run (not are, but run) in this Mechanistic Mindset.
Initially makes sense because when you have a a different background, the best you can do is equalize the communication style.
Someone said something interesting about those differences that relate to the article: In the US the culture is more or less like a salad, where maybe all the ingredients are sliced but more or less you know each one, and the result is something good. In Europe, the culture is more like a soup or a Fundue where differences are below the water but the surface is homogeneous, or all the ingredients are melted together.*
* N.B: I do not have a horse on this race or any preference over another.
But as soon some of the traits of those countries starts to appear in a slightly fashion, those friendly societies will fight tooth and nail to establish their values even over the European ones (e.g. social integration, education, etc). DHH made a great summary over it [1].
For instance, in some parts of Central Europe, if you're speaking a different language with your child on a train people feel entitled to ask you to stop and speak their language since you live there.
I lived in US for a while and I never have seen that.
[1] - https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-reality-of-the-danish-fairytal...
To me, if you are the one doing the approaching and interrupting of someone else's time, then you should abide by their preferences.
> “Sometimes in an attempt to be more efficient, we do things that make the process less efficient.”
in the article it is followed immediately by:
> In enacting civility, two themes emerged:
>
> Civility was viewed as preventing a situation from escalating, and ultimately attaining a beneficial outcome. “We would not want events to get out of hand,” said one employee.
>
> Employees believe it is intrinsically important to be respectful and understanding. Said one participant, “consideration should be given to the feelings and ideas of each person.”
i think that civility and being respectful (which would mean curtailing extraneous conversation) is considerably different from wasting someone's time with irrelevant discussion