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 Workplace Politics:

About Workplace Hugs

In the past twenty years in the United States, we've changed from a relatively hug-free workplace culture to one that, in some quarters, seems to be experiencing a hugging tsunami. Knowing how to deal with hugging is now a valuable skill.

How to Avoid a Layoff: Your Relationships

In troubled economic times, layoffs loom almost everywhere. Here are some tips for reconfiguring your relationships with others at work and at home to reduce the chances that you will be laid off.

False Consensus

Most of us believe that our own opinions are widely shared. We overestimate the breadth of consensus about controversial issues. This is the phenomenon of false consensus. It creates trouble in the workplace, but that trouble is often avoidable.

What Do You Need?

When working issues jointly with others, especially with one other, we sometimes hear, "What do you need to make this work?" Your answers can doom your effort — or make it a smashing success.

Devious Political Tactics: Mis- and Disinformation

Practitioners of workplace politics intent on gaining unfair advantage sometimes use misinformation, disinformation, and other information-related tactics. Here's a short catalog of techniques to watch for.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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