The proportion of young people who oppose the “silent aggression” in the workplace is twice as high as that of older people, experts pointed out during a press conference at the National Press Club of BTA in Sofia.
The results of the study were presented by Angel Lazarov – founder of the Institute of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and initiator of the study for the recognition and prevention of “silent aggression”, Radoslava Krosneva - HR director, member of the board of ICF for Bulgaria, mentor and coach; partner in the initiative and Divil Kulev - sociologist and executor of the study.
The survey was conducted online through a self-completion questionnaire with the participation of 1002 respondents aged 18 to 65. Of the respondents, 86.1% are employed, 1.9% - students or pupils, 3.9% - housewives or mothers on maternity leave, 3.9% - pensioners, 4.2% - unemployed.
The questionnaire is focused on relationships in the family and friends, partnership relationships and relationships in the workplace.
"Silent aggression" is a phenomenon through which we violate the boundaries of the other or, respectively, ours are violated, said Angel Lazarov. According to him, this type of aggression happens through hidden pressure, which does not look like a conflict and is therefore very difficult to recognize. It leaves people confused, with the feeling that something is not right, he pointed out.
In “silent aggression” people do not directly say what they want, what they can and cannot do, they use hints and jokes, unsaid expectations, ignoring and guilt, he explained.
It turned out that in a work environment, the phenomenon of "silent aggression" is most widespread and has the highest price, Angel Lazarov pointed out.
If for 45-55 year olds the proportion of those who oppose negative processes at work is 33%, then for young people this proportion is over 60%. Young people are less susceptible to the so-called “silent aggression” and the suggestions that are trying to be made to them through it, said sociologist Divil Kulev when presenting the results of the survey.
According to the data from the study, to the question “How often do you get a new urgent task at work, regardless of your other tasks?” 52% of the respondents answered “often”, 24% - “rarely”, 17% - “constantly” and 7% - “never”. To the question “How often do you get interrupted or ignored at work?” 45% of the respondents answered “often”, 39% - “rarely”, 7% - “constantly” and 9% “never”.
To the question “When a colleague/manager violates your professional boundaries (for example - writes after working hours, asks for personal services, etc.), you act as: 13% of the respondents answered “I refuse clearly”, 25% - “I do it, but I feel used”, 13% - “I boil inside, but I don't show anything”, 17% - “I avoid answering”, 22% - “I explain my boundaries”, 16% - “I accept that this is everywhere”, 7% - “other”.
A much smaller proportion of people “refuse” or “set boundaries” than in personal relationships, Kulev said.
The percentage of women who have answered that they are assigned a new urgent task is higher, he pointed out.
It is characteristic of younger people that a very small percentage of them feel guilty for things they have not done. But the younger a person is, the more often they receive unsolicited advice and evaluations, sarcastic remarks in the workplace. Young people are often interrupted, their opinion is ignored, their older colleagues appropriate their ideas. Overall, young people are much more inclined to pay attention to such problems in the workplace, Kulev pointed out.
People are quite open when it comes to the inner circle, he commented. To the question “How often do you get unsolicited advice and assessments of life answers in the family or in the circle of friends?” 50% of the respondents answered “often”, 29% - “rarely”, 14% - “constantly” and 7% - “never”.
To the question “How often do you get made to feel guilty for things you haven't done in the family or in the circle of friends?” 43% of the respondents answered “often”, 36% - “rarely”, 13% - “never” and 8% - “constantly”.
To the question “How often does your partner punish you with emotional distance in a partnership?” 36% of the respondents answered “often”, 37% - “rarely”, 21% - “never” and 6% - “constantly”.
To the question “How often does your partner monitor your profiles and comment on who has written to you or check your phone/messages in a partnership?” 23% of the respondents answered “often”, 34% - “rarely”, 39% - “never” and 4% - “constantly”.
In response to the question of how people react when someone in the family violates their personal space: 49% answered “I say directly that I don't like it”, 13% - “I keep silent, but I feel bad”, 13% - “I boil inside, but I don't show anything”, 7% - “I do the same in response”, 21% - “I try to explain why it is important to me”, 13% - “I withdraw emotionally”, 5% - “other”.
To the question “When someone in your family violates your personal space (e.g., reads your SMS, enters without knocking, etc.), you: 43% of the respondents answered “I say immediately that I don't like it”, 15% - “I keep silent, but I lose trust”, 10% - “I boil inside, but I don't show anything”, 8% - “I do the same”, 29% - “I try to explain how I feel”, 8% - “I accept that ‘this is normal’”, 4% - “other”.
The influence on women is stronger than on men, Kulev commented.
It is interesting that women are less often punished with emotional distance than men, this “weapon” is more characteristic of women than men, he commented.
Men are less likely to monitor and comment on who has written in the profiles of women, while women more often use this as a way of influencing men. In the partnership, statistically, the behavior of both younger and older people is quite similar, he said.
According to the sociologist Divil Kulev, “silent aggression” is something like a social phenomenon. Whether we want it or not, it is quite acceptable for society, it happens very often. We almost accept it as something normal, he said.
According to him, all the attention is focused on “real” aggression, like someone hitting someone, strong psychological abuse. But the data from the study show that these “mild” forms also have a great influence, Kulev said.
Examples of silent aggression in the office are indirect systemic behaviors that undermine trust, psychological safety, said Radoslava Krosneva. As an example, she pointed out interruptions during meetings, talking behind the back, humorous sarcasm, suddenly launching urgent tasks, suggesting guilt. Unfortunately, however, this is not a one-time incident, but something that is repeated and becomes the norm, she commented.
She cited data from a “Gallup” study, according to which the consequences of “silent aggression” are an 18% drop in productivity, a 23% drop in profit, and 43% of the turnover is due to silent aggression.
The frequent change of priorities in a company is also a type of silent aggression, leads to burnout among employees and, accordingly, to turnover. Because there is pressure, people work in panic, begin to compromise quality, take their work home. Another example of “silent aggression” is stealing an idea. When a person presents an idea and another takes it and presents it as their own, that person who has an idea stops sharing, because they no longer see the point, Krosneva pointed out.
These behaviors are normalized in our society. But regardless of this, the person feels a vaguely oppressive tension, Angel Lazarov pointed out.
Sometimes “silent aggression” is manifested in the form of care. An example of this type of aggression in a partnership is that “there is no argument, the evening is quiet”, but there is no closeness.
According to him, when this is repeated, a person begins to doubt himself and decides that there is no point in speaking, stops expressing an opinion, withdraws. Loses trust in the partner, in the circle of friends, family and colleagues.
This has a social price, because when people see that there is no point in expressing opinions, the attitude “nothing depends on me” appears, Lazarov said.
According to him, this habit is transferred from the team at home, in the relationships to society and to the institutions. A vicious circle is created.
In order to get out of it, recognition is needed first, second - setting boundaries, and third - honest conversation, Angel Lazarov believes.