Mon, 15 Oct 2007
Allowing staff to swear at work can benefit them and their employers, according to researchers at the University of East Anglia.
Prof Yehuda Baruch, professor of management at the UEA-based Norwich Business School (NBS), and graduate Stuart Jenkins looked at the use of expletives and swearing in the work place from a management point of view.
They identified the relevance and even importance of using non-conventional and sometimes uncivil language at work and how it may have a positive impact.
The study found regular use of profanity to express and reinforce solidarity among staff, enabling them to express their feelings, such as frustration, and develop social relationships.
The results of the study, Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: when anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable, are published in the current issue of the Leadership and Organization Development Journal (Vol 28 Issue 6, pages 492-507).
Prof Baruch said their aim was to challenge leadership styles and suggest ideas for best practice. “Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner. Swearing was as a social phenomenon to reflect solidarity and enhance group cohesiveness, or as a psychological phenomenon to release stress.
“Most of the cases were reported by employees at the lower levels of the organisational hierarchies and it was clear that executives use swearing language less frequently. The primary issue for management is whether or not to apply a tolerant leadership culture to the workplace and deliberately allow swearing.”
Prof Baruch added: “We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to ‘think differently’, and be open to intriguing ideas.”
Younger managers and professionals were more tolerant in what they accepted as ethical behaviour, suggesting that age may be a moderator for the spreading of swearing language to the workplace. Women also swore more than might traditionally be expected, especially among themselves.
The study also found that swearing did not take place in front of or within close proximity to customers, but once they had gone or in staff areas.
The research suggests that while a ban on swear words and reprimanding staff might represent strong leadership, it would remove the source of solidarity and in doing so could lead to decreased morale and work motivation.
However, Prof Baruch and Mr Jenkins stress that abusive and offensive swearing should be eliminated where it generates greater levels of stress, rather than helping to relieve it.
Prof Baruch said the use of swearing would continue to rise in the workplace and become more of an issue for leaders and managers.
“The question is what should we do about it? We offer a model and some practical advice. Certainly in most scenarios, in particular in the presence of customers or senior staff, profanity must be seriously discouraged or banned,” he said.
“However, our study suggested that in many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress. Banning it could backfire.”
He added: “Managers need to understand how their staff feel about swearing. The challenge is to master the ‘art’ of knowing when to turn a blind eye to communication that does not meet their own standards.”
They identified the relevance and even importance of using non-conventional and sometimes uncivil language at work and how it may have a positive impact.
The study found regular use of profanity to express and reinforce solidarity among staff, enabling them to express their feelings, such as frustration, and develop social relationships.
The results of the study, Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: when anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable, are published in the current issue of the Leadership and Organization Development Journal (Vol 28 Issue 6, pages 492-507).
Prof Baruch said their aim was to challenge leadership styles and suggest ideas for best practice. “Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner. Swearing was as a social phenomenon to reflect solidarity and enhance group cohesiveness, or as a psychological phenomenon to release stress.
“Most of the cases were reported by employees at the lower levels of the organisational hierarchies and it was clear that executives use swearing language less frequently. The primary issue for management is whether or not to apply a tolerant leadership culture to the workplace and deliberately allow swearing.”
Prof Baruch added: “We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to ‘think differently’, and be open to intriguing ideas.”
Younger managers and professionals were more tolerant in what they accepted as ethical behaviour, suggesting that age may be a moderator for the spreading of swearing language to the workplace. Women also swore more than might traditionally be expected, especially among themselves.
The study also found that swearing did not take place in front of or within close proximity to customers, but once they had gone or in staff areas.
The research suggests that while a ban on swear words and reprimanding staff might represent strong leadership, it would remove the source of solidarity and in doing so could lead to decreased morale and work motivation.
However, Prof Baruch and Mr Jenkins stress that abusive and offensive swearing should be eliminated where it generates greater levels of stress, rather than helping to relieve it.
Prof Baruch said the use of swearing would continue to rise in the workplace and become more of an issue for leaders and managers.
“The question is what should we do about it? We offer a model and some practical advice. Certainly in most scenarios, in particular in the presence of customers or senior staff, profanity must be seriously discouraged or banned,” he said.
“However, our study suggested that in many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress. Banning it could backfire.”
He added: “Managers need to understand how their staff feel about swearing. The challenge is to master the ‘art’ of knowing when to turn a blind eye to communication that does not meet their own standards.”
