Dealing with Condescension

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.

Habitual

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.

Reciprocal

Responses to condescension
are more effective
when they fit
the situation

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."

Intentional

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.

Habitual, reciprocal, intentional — three different patterns that require three different approaches. Even I can understand that.  Top    Next Issue

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 welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Interviewing the Willing: Tactics

When we need information from each other, even when the source is willing, we sometimes fail to expose critical facts. Here are some tactics for eliciting information from the willing.

Nasty Questions: I

Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather, they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Achieving Goals: Inspiring Passion and Action

Achieving your goals requires both passion and action. Knowing when to emphasize passion and when to emphasize action are the keys to managing yourself, or others, toward achievement.

Changing the Subject: II

Sometimes, in conversation, we must change the subject, but we also do it to dominate, manipulate, or assert power. Subject changing — and controlling its use — can be important political skills.

How to Misunderstand Somebody Else

Misunderstandings are commonplace at work, as in most of the rest of Life. At work, they might be even more commonplace, because at work it sometimes seems that people are actually trying to misunderstand. Here's a handy guide for those who want to get better at misunderstanding others.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info