Condescension is rarely accidental. Typically, repeat offenders do know how to be tactful, respectful, or humble. If they didn't know how, then every once in a while, by accident, they would be tactful, respectful, or humble, because they wouldn't know how to avoid it.
Those who are frequently condescending are usually in one (or more) of three patterns.
- What seems condescending is sometimes a habit, a cultural difference, or a cultural preference. In a culture in which one of the sexes is held to be weaker, showing deference is a simple courtesy. To someone from a different culture or with different values, that same deference can seem condescending.
- For managers: Habitual condescension is the pattern most likely to respond to education or training. A performance improvement plan or probation is probably unnecessary and might be perceived as a disproportionate response.
- For individuals: Unless the maker of the remark also asks for help (a most unlikely scenario), advice will likely be unwelcome. Consider the incident a chance to practice tolerance.
- Responses to condescension
are more effective
when they fit
- So little thought informs reciprocal condescension that associating a larger plan or strategy with it is difficult. Moreover, if the condescension is truly reciprocal, determining "who started it" is usually unproductive, because the precipitating comment might belong to a prior incident.
- For managers: Although education or training can help, conventional approaches have limited value because this pattern is systemic. That is, the pattern belongs to a group, and the intervention must assess and target that group's processes. And since what the group learns must be accessible under stress, experiential training is more likely to succeed.
- For individuals: The cycle will break only if one of you breaks it. Try asking for what you want, using an "I" statement. For instance, with a peer you might say, "Ouch. I'd really like us to figure out a way to work together that doesn't hurt so much."
- People who employ intentional condescension are often trying to intimidate, to inflict insult, to upset the status order, or to cause someone to "lose it." Or they might be trying to establish a more comfortable status ordering in their own minds.
- For managers: Purposeful condescension is least likely to respond to education or training. A performance improvement plan or probation is appropriate and more likely to be effective.
- For individuals: Progress with people who have organizational power is unlikely, especially if they outrank you. Even with a peer, chances of success are limited, but they're greatest if you try a private approach. If you're firm and fearless, your partner will be more likely to believe that you'll escalate if things don't change.
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
For tips for controlling condescension, see "Controlling Condescension," Point Lookout for August 17, 2005.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZpnfubeDrKQRAHoCner@ChacUDebVQFkUrMlGNEcoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Effective Communication at Work:
- When You Aren't Supposed to Say: III
- Most of us have information that's "company confidential," or even more sensitive than that.
Sometimes people who want to know what we know try to suspend our ability to think critically. Here
are some of their techniques.
- The True Costs of Indirectness
- Indirect communications are veiled, ambiguous, excessively diplomatic, or conveyed to people other than
the actual target. We often use indirectness to avoid confrontation or to avoid dealing with conflict.
It can be an expensive practice.
- Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I
- When we address others, we sometimes use filler — so-called automatic speech or embolalia —
without thinking. Examples are "uh," "um," and "er," but there are more
complex forms, too. Embolalia are usually harmless, if mildly annoying to some. But sometimes they can
- Cognitive Biases and Influence: II
- Most advice about influencing others offers intentional tactics. Yet, the techniques we actually use
are often unintentional, and we're therefore unaware of them. Among these are tactics exploiting cognitive
- They Just Don't Understand
- When we cannot resolve an issue in open debate, we sometimes try to explain the obstinacy of others.
The explanations we favor can tell us more about ourselves than they do about others.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenLGFqLiYWAsvFixBLner@ChacATGMljAfeavVUSrSoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.