Rudeness in the American business environment is explored by many articles, each of which considers this topic from a different perspective. The paramount question is whether Americans tend to be ruder in their interactions at the workplace or not. It is essential to pay attention to the modern context and people involved in communication to understand the identified topic in an in-depth manner.
In the US, workplace incivility is detected in various forms and interactions as found in the systematic review of the recent literature performed by Schilpzand, De Pater, and Erez (2014). In particular, the authors provide the review of more than 20 articles and conclude that workplace incivility is largely caused by sexism and racial discrimination. At the same time, several incivility forms are explored, including witnessed, experienced, and instigated (Schilpzand et al., 2014). The communication with coworkers, partners, and supervisors tend to become ruder because of conflicts associated with culture, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, organizational issues, and so on.
Discussing the results of the study by Schilpzand et al. (2014), one should note that it provides a rather detailed excursus to understanding the overall workplace incivility in the US. These findings seem to be useful to be utilized in the future research, thus coming up with relevant strategies on the reduction of rudeness. Most importantly, the attitudes of perpetrators and situational antecedents discovered in the article outline the key issues to be taken into account while working on the problem. Such outcomes as work exhaustion, distrust, a lack of reciprocity, exclusion, exchange partner quality, et cetera should be targeted in terms of workplace incivility elimination.
Driven by the global changes, the American business environment also largely applies the benefits of the digital world. Washington, Okoro, and Cardon (2014) explore the perceptions of business professionals regarding the use of mobile phones in formal and informal contexts. Based on two studies, the authors state that workplace use of smartphones is considered inappropriate during business meetings even though they are perceived as an integral part of the modern world. Another trend is that young workers accept mobile phones during formal meetings more than others, while women reflect less approval for checking messages and calling (Washington et al., 2014). Thus, the study shows that workplace rudeness, as reported by participants, may be expressed in mobile phone use during formal conversations.
The results of the above study reveal the spread of rudeness at the workplace that impedes effectiveness employee communications and leads to professional and emotional exhaustion. While checking e-mails and doing other activities via mobile phone during official meetings is unacceptably rude for some people, others, who seem to be suffering from phone separation anxiety or those practicing multitasking, consider it normal (Washington et al., 2014). Such tensions may cause misunderstanding between employees and supervisors and give premises to larger workplace conflicts. Even though smartphones presents important tools for business environment, it seems that their use should be limited, and a compromise should be achieved.
To conclude, the review of the two mentioned articles demonstrates that workplace rudeness takes place in the US. Expressed in inappropriate mobile phone use and incivility due to differences in culture, organization, and perception of other issues, workplace rudeness becomes characteristics to Americans. Thus, it is evident that business interactions should be adjusted accordingly to establish civil workplace relationships.
References
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2014). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 1-32.
Washington, M. C., Okoro, E. A., & Cardon, P. W. (2014). Perceptions of civility for mobile phone use in formal and informal meetings. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 52-64.