Language maketh the man ...

By JULIE MIDDLETON

The language you take to the office acts like the clothes you wear - both serve to project an image. But, a survey shows, most of us aren't minding our mouths.

Workplace manners have deteriorated in the past five years, according to 57 per cent of the people who responded to an on-line TMP survey last year. And worse,

* 55 per cent said they had been sworn at during the working day, with the same number saying they found swearing offensive.

* Colleagues did the most swearing, said 57 per cent, followed by bosses (22 per cent) and customers and clients (20 per cent).

* 59 per cent of those surveyed said there was no policy in their workplace governing the use of offensive language.

Let's define swearing as the use of profane, taboo, derogatory and sexually explicit words, drawing on religion, sex, race, madness, excretion and nationality, and encompassing the violent and shocking as well as amusing, absurd and casual.

You'd normally equate it with great emotion or great insult. In fact, it's thought that loaded language is stored in a part of the brain that tends to be called into action when we're angry or emotional.

And in conversation, swearing serves to exhibit allegiance within a group - probably one of the reasons why it's so hard to desist when everyone else does it.

American researcher Kristy Beers, who wrote a doctoral thesis on the subject while at the University of Florida, says swearing is a way of showing solidarity.

"In the back of everyone's mind we have rules, but what is more important than the rules is the company we are in ... it overrides the environment and the rules.

"When we want to be like the person we are speaking with, we tend to take on their way of speaking."

Not all groups, though. Broadcasting Standards Authority research shows that Pacific peoples are much less tolerant of swearing than the general population of New Zealand; linguists report that Polynesian languages are among those tongues that don't have swear words.

But where do you draw the line on lusty Anglo-Saxon oaths? What's obscene to one group of people won't be to another. Over time, tolerances shift. Take the Toyota "Bugger" ad; the word has gone from taboo to marketing tool.

At work, most would say that swearing with intent to be disrespectful is out of line. Swearing for emphasis or to aid a punchline might be okay, depending on office culture.

Swearing at customers or at the public while working is generally seen as a no-no. And add to that a work situation that might get a public airing.

Embarrassed Social Services Minister Steve Maharey banned bad language in his office after the 2001 court case over dumped Work and Income head Christine Rankin revealed he had thumped a table with his fist, accompanying it four times with the F word.

Ringing around the country's HR managers, it appears blue language isn't generally singled out in company codes of conduct or ethics.

HR managers in a range of large employers, from Lion Nathan to Auckland University of Technology, say problematic potty-mouths would probably be dealt with under performance management, misconduct, harassment or bullying procedures. Harassment?

"Repeated swearing can certainly be harassment," says psychologist and business coach Iain McCormick. "Harassment can take place in a wide range of ways, but the most important point is that the harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. The victim does not have to be the person sworn at - just anyone affected by it."

Richard Manthel, the NZ boss of recruiter Robert Walters New Zealand, echoes many of his counterparts when he says that "each culture sets its own limit".

But he admits that some groups forget how their language sounds to outsiders.

"Quite often we need to tell our clients to tone down their language. If people feel uncomfortable or disapprove they tend to vote with their feet."

Or they have a go at their employers. Auckland lawyer Andrew Caisley observes the law requires employers to provide a "safe workplace ... where they are free from insulting, intimidating and abusive behaviour".

Although swearing may be acceptable in some offices, it's unprofessional, says American James O'Connor, who set up the Cuss Control Academy in Illinois in 1998.

"The problem with swearing is often the abrasive and hostile attitude that accompanies it, not the words themselves," he explains.

"Work can be difficult and stressful, but the best workers deal with problems and deal with their emotions in a mature manner.

"If people know they have to control their language, they are likely to also control their temper. Unchecked anger and name-calling can lead to violence."

But, "if someone tells a joke, and profanity is essential to the punchline, that's different. We can all use a good laugh now and then".

A picture of our tolerance comes from a 1999 study of 1000 people over 15 years old for the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The C word and another relating to one's mother was unacceptable on telly by more than three-quarters of those questioned, reflecting the findings of a 1993 survey.

A taboo label for black people was the third most unacceptable word, followed by the F word. Next on the list were cock, whore, a***hole, w****r, prick and Jesus Christ. Bugger was right at the end of the list, with 73 per cent rating it okay. But two Employment Court cases show how difficult it is to set limits. In one case resulting from the language in an email exchange, an Employment Court ruled that swearing was common at internet provider ihug and ordered a sacked worker reinstated.

But when staff of the then-Employment Service were sacked for sending abusive, pornographic or insulting messages, their case failed because their behaviour was seen to fall short of "the high traditions of loyal and dependable conduct that are expected of civil servants".