Communication strategies for managing hostile employee behavior in the workplace

Speaking With Hostile Employees

This study appreiates the fact that employees have diverse personalities are respond differently when annoyed. It is clear from this sudy that some may respond with exteme hostility even on the slightest provocation. Strategies like the use of humor, resolving differences later and being emphatic are essential in dealing with hostile employees. The key to addressing such cases is by enhancing and promoting a working culture that is based on understanding civil behavior, respect, and constructive conflict.

Speaking With Hostile Employees

Behaviors like "venting anger," "letting it out" or "losing it" are no longer considered healthy ways of expressing oneself honestly. We live in a culture where aggression can be the predicted and sometimes an approved response to disappointment, threat, or conflict. This is adversely affecting the workplace and in general employee relationships. The company must be seriously concerned about the issues because aggressive working surroundings are very traumatic and may lower employee performance. Aggressive individuals like Jones, who can kill group spirit, create anxiety among other workers and take part in sabotage and other dangerous behaviors. This makes possibly intense circumstances that could result in violent and sometimes even aggressive reactions. The following are some techniques and methods that can help deal with the case situation in a constructive manner.

Using Humor

"Silly humor" may help prevent anger in various ways. It can assist the manager get a more balanced viewpoint. Humor can always be trusted to soften a tense scenario. When Jones feels the urge to get angry, the manager can advise him to picture himself as the leader, in charge of the company, striding in his way in the situation. The more detail he gets into imaginary situations, the more changes he will have to learn that maybe he is unreasonable. He can also realize how useless the things he is angry about really are. The use of humor has two cautions. First, the manager should not try to "laugh off" Jones's problems; instead, he can use humor to help Jones face them constructively. Second, the manager must not give sarcastic, harsh humor; this is another version of unhealthy anger management approach (Jones, 2007). This strategy is founded on the notion of refusing to be too serious. Aggression is a major emotional issue. However, if examined, Jones and the manager laugh can end up laughing.

Motivational discipline

Disciplinary methods that handle Jones as a kid who must be punished for breaking workplace rules will not work. Employees who are disciplined using these methods usually react with rage, apathy, or resentment, resulting in a decrease in productivity and morale. In addition, if the manager looks at self-discipline in this way, he will prevent imposing self-discipline because of its agonizing or distressing nature. In the meanwhile, they foster an "anything goes" environment (England, 2012). Discipline, concentrating on future expectations, is much more efficient than self-discipline, which concentrates on past wrongdoings. The future-focused "you can do it" disciplinary strategy can provide Jones with a beneficial challenge to enhance his behavior.

In contrast, a damaging "this is how bad you have been behaving in the past" strategy can confirm Jones's perspective about the futility of his initiatives to change behavior. Instead of correcting Jones's behavior, adverse focused early disciplinary actions become a self-fulfilling prediction. Jones believes the manager has no trust in his capability to bring his conduct to the standards required and consequently makes no significant attempt to change. Instead, he will just "hang on," until things get so bad that the company decides there is no alternative than to discharge him. Unfortunately, by that time, Jones will have been successful in decreasing the efficiency standard for all the associates he works around (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2009).

This strategy is known as "positive" or "motivational" self-discipline. Instead, it is a method of communicating progressive discipline. As recognized from the more conventional strategy, as beneficial discipline concentrates on individual liability and making decisions instead of disciplinary charges or penalties. This "problem-solving" strategy to discipline is based upon the idea that Jones is a grownup who prefers success to failure. It is also grounded on the simple perception that the main liability for adherence to company standards rests with Jones, not the manager. Managers and supervisors who use positive disciplinary methods in instilling discipline will discover that discipline is simpler to communicate and more efficient. They will also realize that their post-disciplinary connections with the regimented worker are comfortable.

Conclusion

There will always be aggressive individualities in the workplace, and whether they are justified in their claim or cause, violence should never be approved as part of an organizational culture. Developing possibilities for workers to learn about rage and coping with it through some of the identified methods can inform individuals to have control over their impulses. Essential though is for management to prevent being aggressive themselves, and to foster working atmospheres where workers feel valued and respected. Nothing can substitute a positive working relationship between employees and with their management. Leaders need to understand to tune into their individuals and be aware of human dynamics happening in their company. In this perspective, developing emotional competence and emotional intelligence are key components for the effective development of healthy, violence-free, operating environments.