More than merely annoying, rude behaviour is a catalyst for aggression and decreased productivity. When an employee is getting on everyone�s nerves, too many managers are too quick to say �oh, that�s just him�…. especially when it�s a star performer.

Addressing behaviour is one of the hardest things that leaders have to do. We don�t like calling out behaviours – generally because it can be pretty subjective and the �rules� are a little ambiguous. But some new research might make you think again about accepting a team member�s rudeness.

Professor Ido Erev, a specialist in behaviour explored the effect of rudeness. Simply, he asked students to turn up to an office to take a test. Outside the door of the office, obscured by a million post it notes, was a small sign that said �test moved to another location�. Most students, unable to locate or read the sign, walked into the office anyway, interrupting a lecturer. The lecturer did one of two things: they either turned on the student saying things like �are you stupid? Can�t you read?� or else they pleasantly told the student of their mistake, and pointed them in the right direction.

Down the hall, in the new location, the students took a problem solving test (this is what they thought the experiment was about). The results were astonishing: the students who were treated rudely scored significantly worse in the test than those who were treated pleasantly.

But here�s another impact. The students also did a classic creativity test – in two minutes, they had to think of as many uses as possible for a brick. Those who were treated rudely concocted far more aggressive uses for the brick than those who weren�t, including smashing windows, using it as a weapon, and weighing down a dead body in a river!!

So next time you hear complaints about rude or unfair behaviour amongst your team, think twice about looking the other way. You just never know how big the impact is to those around you. You might even find yourself on the wrong end of a brick.

In every job there are things that you�ll really enjoy and parts that you don�t. It�s the things that we love that keep us engaged and productive, they provide us with energy and naturally increase our productivity. Schedule the things you enjoy at least once a day. If possible, engage in these things either first thing in the morning to get your energy levels up, or last thing of the day to finish on a high note.
It�s far too easy to get caught up in the things you don�t like and then complain about it later on. Before you know it, you dislike your job because you don�t get to do the things you enjoy. But this is up to you as much as any one else.
It�s easy to identify the things you like. They will be things that you get lost in, things you volunteer for and things that require no external motivation to get going. Make a list of these things and engage in them at least once a day.
If you find that you never get a chance to do these things, discuss them with your manager and find a way to incorporate them into your daily work.

I hear this all the time:

�I work 70 hour weeks, but I don�t expect my people to. I believe in work-life balance for them, but I can�t really do it.�

Despite every great intention, this never works. So many employees in this situation tell me that even though their 70-hour-a-week manager tells them to go home early or take a lunch break, they feel guilty if they actually do it. If leaders are serious about work-life balance, there is no other option but to model it themselves.

The field of neuroscience has a simple answer as to why this happens: we don�t like inconsistency. And while inconsistency is unpalatable for us in many situations, few are as toxic as inconsistency between people�s feelings and their behaviour.

Observing Emotions vs Behaviour

When we try to cover up emotions � when something goes wrong and we try to put on our poker face, or when we have bad news and try to deliver it with a smile � the resulting stress physiology that we experience is remarkable. For some people, even though they don�t feel it, this incongruence between what we�re feeling and how we�re acting seems to happen below the level of consciousness (depending on the strength of the emotion).

But there is an even more startling effect. If someone is forced to observe this inconsistency, that is, if there is a second person watching someone trying to disconnect their emotions from their behaviour, the observer gets an even greater stress response than the person who is trying to show the poker face.

Now, we can interpret this in many ways, but the general message is this:

When people watch someone doing something that is at odds with what they are saying or feeling, this inconsistency causes a stress reaction and makes the observer uncomfortable.

It is no wonder that the employee who hears their manager say one thing, but then watches them do something completely different is confused about the most effective behaviours to choose.

It doesn�t matter if the boss� intentions are wonderful � if their behaviours don�t match their explicit intention then their employees will choose to focus on the behaviour, not the words.