首页 / 财富中文网 / 正文

“失礼行为”每天让美国企业蒙受高达20亿美元损失

财富中文网 2025-09-03 23:05:32

“失礼行为”每天让美国企业蒙受高达20亿美元损失
图片来源:Getty Images

美国人力资源管理协会(SHRM)最新研究揭示,工作场所中文明行为的缺失,正致使美国企业每日承受高达约21亿美元的损失。该机构梳理粗鲁无礼行为、简短生硬邮件及尖刻互动的报告后发现,工作效率下滑与员工缺勤现象正在侵蚀企业利润。

美国人力资源管理协会的文明指数研究发现,美国员工每天共遭遇2.08亿次“失礼行为”,这一数字在2024年大选期间急剧上升,目前仍接近历史最高水平(较上季度1.98亿次亦有增长)。此类从隐晦轻蔑到公然敌对的持续性不尊重行为,最终转化为代价高昂的缺勤、士气低落和产出减少。

美国人力资源管理协会首席人力资源官吉姆·林克(Jim Link)近期在接受《财富》杂志采访时指出:“我们清楚这一数字,这相当于21亿美元的生产力损失。”

粗鲁无礼行为激增的根源

美国人力资源管理协会表示,办公室不文明行为激增是由更广泛的社会政治紧张局势、疫情引发的压力以及林克所说的“数字勇气”推动的,这个词让人联想到社交媒体时代的“键盘侠”。简而言之,人们在网络上敢于发表面对面交流时绝不敢发表的言论。政治立场、社会议题乃至移民政策分歧正不断在工作场所引发摩擦,根源在于员工们难以妥善应对激烈辩论以及文化分歧。

“数字勇气指的是躲在屏幕这一安全屏障后,对任何话题、任何人畅所欲言的观念。”林克向《财富》杂志解释道,并指出这一现象不仅对美国社区乃至整个社会产生影响,更波及个体及工作场所。“倘若人们在行使数字勇气的权利,那么它可能正在向工作场所、社区和社会渗透或蔓延。我们认为这种情况完全有可能发生。”

美国人力资源管理协会并非唯一研究这一课题的机构。林克指出,杜克大学的“公民对话项目”及迈阿密大学的研究团队也在开展相关工作。不过,美国人力资源管理协会对工作场所中粗鲁无礼行为的解读仍具有独到见解。

对幸福感的实质影响

美国人力资源管理协会的研究发现,办公室不文明行为的影响远远超出了伤害感情的范畴。管理者们报告称,充斥不文明现象的工作场所会导致员工心理安全感降低、团队凝聚力减弱,并在包容性与多样性指标方面表现欠佳——这些因素直接影响企业利润,因此备受首席执行官关注。

林克表示,这可能与美国人力资源管理协会针对工作场所“幸福感”开展的独立研究存在关联,不过他坦言,目前尚未发现二者之间存在因果联系。截至5月,超三分之一的受访员工表示工作带来极大压力。除此之外,员工幸福感整体状况喜忧参半,且已显露出令人担忧的迹象。

林克指出,幸福指数在疫情初期大幅下降,随后在2021年大幅反弹。他表示,他们认为2021年的回升反映了“疫苗带来的喜悦”,总体而言,“基本上67%的受访者表示其幸福状况较疫情前有所恶化,此后大部分时间里评分基本持平。”除此之外,“女性群体评分较低,少数族裔群体评分较低,年轻群体评分也较低。”

文化的重要性

企业领导者必须正视这一问题。美国人力资源管理协会的研究强调了组织文化的重要性:当首席执行官和主管们以身作则并规范文明行为时,信任度与绩效表现将同步提升。美国人力资源管理协会倡导企业明确行为期望、完善友善准则、培训员工掌握主动倾听技巧——促使工作场所对话从争论转变为讨论,而非下达“封口令”或禁止讨论敏感话题。

林克以某封邮件为例说明所谓的“不文明行为”。他向《财富》杂志透露,自己亲阅这封被指存在问题的邮件后,认为其措辞虽直截了当,但“属于正常商务沟通范畴”。诚然,这封邮件的措辞“不够华美”,但“我当时坐在那里想,这到底哪里不文明了?”当员工报告不文明行为时,美国人力资源管理协会会追问具体指控内容。大多数情况不过是邮件措辞简短生硬,或口头交流时态度尖刻。他补充道,所幸肢体暴力事件并不多见。

但他从中获得了一个关键启示:不文明行为“更多与组织文化相关,而非取决于当事人是否有意为之”。他敦促企业要有意识地塑造自身文化,并明确文化期望。美国人力资源管理协会将此称为“文化清晰”。如此一来,不文明行为的界定将更加明晰,或者更不易被随意解读。

“在构建文明行为与文明期望的过程中,文化与领导力同等重要。”他表示。

这并非意味着企业文化本身必然具备文明属性。林克指出,关键在于明确期望。

“当领导者——尤其是首席执行官或高管团队宣告'无论你是否认同,这些就是我们文化的组成部分'时,那么就没有太多解读的余地了。”他说道。(*)

译者:中慧言-王芳

美国人力资源管理协会(SHRM)最新研究揭示,工作场所中文明行为的缺失,正致使美国企业每日承受高达约21亿美元的损失。该机构梳理粗鲁无礼行为、简短生硬邮件及尖刻互动的报告后发现,工作效率下滑与员工缺勤现象正在侵蚀企业利润。

美国人力资源管理协会的文明指数研究发现,美国员工每天共遭遇2.08亿次“失礼行为”,这一数字在2024年大选期间急剧上升,目前仍接近历史最高水平(较上季度1.98亿次亦有增长)。此类从隐晦轻蔑到公然敌对的持续性不尊重行为,最终转化为代价高昂的缺勤、士气低落和产出减少。

美国人力资源管理协会首席人力资源官吉姆·林克(Jim Link)近期在接受《财富》杂志采访时指出:“我们清楚这一数字,这相当于21亿美元的生产力损失。”

粗鲁无礼行为激增的根源

美国人力资源管理协会表示,办公室不文明行为激增是由更广泛的社会政治紧张局势、疫情引发的压力以及林克所说的“数字勇气”推动的,这个词让人联想到社交媒体时代的“键盘侠”。简而言之,人们在网络上敢于发表面对面交流时绝不敢发表的言论。政治立场、社会议题乃至移民政策分歧正不断在工作场所引发摩擦,根源在于员工们难以妥善应对激烈辩论以及文化分歧。

“数字勇气指的是躲在屏幕这一安全屏障后,对任何话题、任何人畅所欲言的观念。”林克向《财富》杂志解释道,并指出这一现象不仅对美国社区乃至整个社会产生影响,更波及个体及工作场所。“倘若人们在行使数字勇气的权利,那么它可能正在向工作场所、社区和社会渗透或蔓延。我们认为这种情况完全有可能发生。”

美国人力资源管理协会并非唯一研究这一课题的机构。林克指出,杜克大学的“公民对话项目”及迈阿密大学的研究团队也在开展相关工作。不过,美国人力资源管理协会对工作场所中粗鲁无礼行为的解读仍具有独到见解。

对幸福感的实质影响

美国人力资源管理协会的研究发现,办公室不文明行为的影响远远超出了伤害感情的范畴。管理者们报告称,充斥不文明现象的工作场所会导致员工心理安全感降低、团队凝聚力减弱,并在包容性与多样性指标方面表现欠佳——这些因素直接影响企业利润,因此备受首席执行官关注。

林克表示,这可能与美国人力资源管理协会针对工作场所“幸福感”开展的独立研究存在关联,不过他坦言,目前尚未发现二者之间存在因果联系。截至5月,超三分之一的受访员工表示工作带来极大压力。除此之外,员工幸福感整体状况喜忧参半,且已显露出令人担忧的迹象。

林克指出,幸福指数在疫情初期大幅下降,随后在2021年大幅反弹。他表示,他们认为2021年的回升反映了“疫苗带来的喜悦”,总体而言,“基本上67%的受访者表示其幸福状况较疫情前有所恶化,此后大部分时间里评分基本持平。”除此之外,“女性群体评分较低,少数族裔群体评分较低,年轻群体评分也较低。”

文化的重要性

企业领导者必须正视这一问题。美国人力资源管理协会的研究强调了组织文化的重要性:当首席执行官和主管们以身作则并规范文明行为时,信任度与绩效表现将同步提升。美国人力资源管理协会倡导企业明确行为期望、完善友善准则、培训员工掌握主动倾听技巧——促使工作场所对话从争论转变为讨论,而非下达“封口令”或禁止讨论敏感话题。

林克以某封邮件为例说明所谓的“不文明行为”。他向《财富》杂志透露,自己亲阅这封被指存在问题的邮件后,认为其措辞虽直截了当,但“属于正常商务沟通范畴”。诚然,这封邮件的措辞“不够华美”,但“我当时坐在那里想,这到底哪里不文明了?”当员工报告不文明行为时,美国人力资源管理协会会追问具体指控内容。大多数情况不过是邮件措辞简短生硬,或口头交流时态度尖刻。他补充道,所幸肢体暴力事件并不多见。

但他从中获得了一个关键启示:不文明行为“更多与组织文化相关,而非取决于当事人是否有意为之”。他敦促企业要有意识地塑造自身文化,并明确文化期望。美国人力资源管理协会将此称为“文化清晰”。如此一来,不文明行为的界定将更加明晰,或者更不易被随意解读。

“在构建文明行为与文明期望的过程中,文化与领导力同等重要。”他表示。

这并非意味着企业文化本身必然具备文明属性。林克指出,关键在于明确期望。

“当领导者——尤其是首席执行官或高管团队宣告'无论你是否认同,这些就是我们文化的组成部分'时,那么就没有太多解读的余地了。”他说道。(*)

译者:中慧言-王芳

Lack of civility in U.S. workplaces is costing American businesses an estimated $2.1 billion per day, according to new research released by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The organization sifts through reports of rudeness, terse emails, and snippy interactions, and finds reduced productivity and absenteeism costing companies’ bottom line.

SHRM’s Civility Index research found that U.S. workers collectively experience 208 million “acts of incivility” each day, a figure that rose sharply around the 2024 election season and remains near record highs. (It’s also up from 198 million in the last quarter.) This nonstop stream of disrespect—from subtle slights to overt hostility—translates into costly absenteeism, sagging morale, and lost output.

“We know that number,” said SHRM’s chief human resources officer Jim Link in a recent interview with Fortune. “That’s $2.1 billion in lost productivity.”

What’s driving the surge in rudeness

SHRM says the spike in office incivility is fueled by broader socio-political tensions, pandemic-induced stress, and what Link calls “digital bravery,” a phrase that conjures up the “keyboard warrior” of the social media era. Simply put, people feel emboldened to say things online that would never fly face-to-face. Differences in political views, social issues, and even immigration policy are leading to workplace friction, as employees struggle to navigate heated debates and cultural divides.

“Digital bravery is this idea that you can say whatever you want, about whomever you want, on any given topic from the safety and security of your screen,” Link told Fortune, adding that he sees it having an impact on American communities, society at large, but also that particular person and, maybe, the workplace. “If people are exercising this right of digital bravery, then perhaps it’s leeching or leaking its way into our workplaces, into our communities, into our society. We think it’s certainly possible.”

SHRM isn’t the only organization studying this. Link noted the Duke Dialogue Project does some work in this space, as does a group at the University of Miami. Still, SHRM is offering a relatively unique insight into what rudeness means for the world of work.

Real impact on well-being

SHRM’s research found the effects of office incivility reverberate well beyond hurt feelings. Managers report uncivil workplaces have lower psychological safety, weaker team cohesion, and poorer outcomes across inclusion and diversity metrics—factors that CEOs care about because they directly affect bottom-line results.

Link said this could be related to separate research that SHRM has done around “well-being” in the workplace, but said SHRM has not find correlation to equal causation here. As of May, more than one-third of employees surveyed said their job causes high levels of stress. The well-being picture beyond that is mixed, but includes concerning signs.

Link noted well-being scores plunged early in the pandemic before rebounding massively in 2021. He said they believe 2021 reflected “vaccine joy” and that overall, “basically 67% of people told us that their well-being was worse than it was prior to the start of the pandemic, and it’s basically stayed flat for the most part ever since. Beyond that, “if you were a woman, your scores were worse. If you were a diverse person, your scores were worse, and if you were a young person, your scores were worse.”

The importance of culture

Business leaders can’t afford to ignore the problem. SHRM’s studies emphasize the crucial role of organizational culture: When CEOs and supervisors model and codify civil behavior, trust and performance improve. Rather than issuing “gag orders” or banning difficult topics, SHRM encourages companies to clarify expectations, refine kindness, and train staff in active listening—transforming workplace dialogue from debate to discussion.

Link offered the particular example of one bit of perceived incivility: an email. He told Fortune he personally read the email in question and viewed it as a bit direct, but “part of a normal business conversation.” To be sure, it wasn’t “flowery,” but “I’m sitting there thinking, okay, what’s uncivil about this?” Link said when people report acts of incivility, SHRM asks them what that actually means. The bulk of things are terseness in an email or snippiness in oral communication. Fortunately, he added, there aren’t too many examples of physical violence.

But there was a key learning for him: Acts of incivility are “more tied to things which relate to the culture of an organization than they necessarily do to whether that in person intended to be uncivil or not.” He urged companies to be intentional about their culture and how they set expectations around it. He said SHRM calls this “cultural clarity.” Then, acts of incivility are clearer, or less open to interpretation.

“Culture matters in this idea of civil behavior and civil expectations, as does leadership,” he said.

This doesn’t mean that the culture itself is necessarily civil. Expectations are key, Link said.

“When a leader, particularly a CEO or an executive team says, ‘These are the components of our culture, whether you like them or not,'” then there’s less room for interpretation,” he said.

*