March 18, 1998

Henry J. Leuchter, Consultant, Interprofessional Commission of Ohio

Stephen D. Warren, Vice President of Corporate Affairs & Ethics Officer, Wendy’s International, Inc.

Moderator: David C. Smith, President, Council for Ethics in Economics

Location: Columbus State Community College, 550 East Spring Street, Columbus, OH 43215

This month’s Conversation was held at Columbus State Community College with Harold C. Babson, Chairperson, Business Mangement Department, as host. Among the forty technical degree programs, Columbus State offers the Associate Degree program in Business Management on the campus or through the "Going the Distance" program that enables students to earn this degree utilizing both telecourses and online courses.

The use of profane and vulgar language appears to be on the rise in entertainment, television programs, and social conversation—and perhaps in work environments. At the same time, there is growing consensus that such language can have harmful effects in employment and business settings. To provide information for discussion, David Smith, moderator, asked the three panelists to address the question: Is vulgar language a problem in the workplace and if so, how?

This is a subject that is relevant to my interests and my industry. As you know, Wendy’s is a restaurant business with a large labor force that includes many of the younger generation. This generation has a different perspective of values and communication than the generation of twenty or thirty years ago. Today we have national network news reporting various issues and court cases such as the sexual harassment cases in the public media, both electronic and print, that impact a person’s perception of values and the way to communicate. The profanity and vulgar language used becomes a common style of communication, a common style of behavior and almost an accepted norm. This kind of language does exist in the workplace—to what degree depends upon the nature of the work environment. It is a significant issue in motivation of employees, an issue in doing business with customers, suppliers and business partners, and, more importantly, in the relationships among employees. Good language is a significant factor in being able to create an environment which is less hostile and is conducive to self-motivation and self-performance.

I was a consultant at the London, Ohio, Prison Farm in the late nineteen-fifties where I learned that there is a cuss word that is an adverb, adjective and a noun. I didn’t understand this word so all the prisoners and the guard tried to educate me to use it and other similar words that denote how you feel about things. After two or three days, I said there are other words in the English language that denote how we feel. If you want to tell me how you feel, then this is not a good way. I suggest that you quit using this cuss word all the time. In fact if you feel you must use it, I’m going to learn to be stone deaf—I’m just not going to hear it. From then on, they educated each other not to use this word. In that environment, while I was there, the word didn’t exist, so I knew there was some control.

In my office there was cussing lots of times because people had strong feelings about things and they needed to use four or six-letter cuss words to tell me. I had to let them blow off steam and then I would say: Now that I know how you feel, could we talk about what is really wrong? So we did.

Today in thinking back, I conclude that we would use less profanity and fewer vulgar words if we were more emotionally, culturally, and morally literate. Cuss words wouldn’t have the meaning they have and wouldn’t matter so much. Over the centuries many have had something to say about vulgarity from Moses to the present. And I say—So what’s new?

The basic concept I would like to leave with you from my perspective is: Vulgar language by an individual usually denotes:

1. insecurity of the individual

2. the desire for attention

3. frustration

4. efforts to control or manipulate people to acquire goods or whatever.

When we get into collective behavior, vulgar language needs to be controlled.

I thought about swearing and vulgar language maybe more broadly along the lines of civility. We are learning that civility is a requirement of our proper and effective functioning in society. We think of the hostile work environment as one that grew out of the issue of sexual equality and fairness. In reality it is a civil issue. It is about people treating each other in a civil manner as they ought to be treated.

When I first entered a newsroom thirty years ago, the language was crude and it was profane. Now that use of language is out of the journalism workplace. Profane language also occurred in other workplaces and it also has made its way out of these places. In our efforts to be politically correct in the media, we have become more civil. We are making an effort to be fair and understanding and practical with all of those around us with various backgrounds and diversities. But at the same time there is an extremist type of communication in the media that is anything but civil. In certain films the loose use of language is extraordinary. If you look at some of the radio programs, the topics which are discussed and the starkness of the discussion are anything but civil. When you turn on the evening news, the language is not explicitly vulgar, but the stories being reported invite the use of vulgar language. It feels intrusive. We say: Should I have to listen to that?—Should my children be exposed to that? I think it is the story that drives those discussions.

I have frequently said in newsrooms during the last few years that the spot news of the nineties is what I call relationship journalism. One of the phenomena behind the O.J. Simpson story and behind many others during the past few years, and certainly the current one involving the president of the United States, is: What is the proper relationship between men and women and each other in society today? Right now we are testing our reporting of relationships.

What crosses the line and is not acceptable? This relationship journalism requires an explicitness to describe actions. It leads to stories that border on what reasonable people might feel cannot be discussed civilly in public. The good news is that there are a lot of forces going on that promote civility. They are:

1. The efforts that are being made to be politically correct have the effect of promoting civility.

2. The effort to have a non-hostile environment for everyone in the workplace promotes civility.

3. The whole discussion over driver rage is promoting patience, tolerance and civility with one another.

4. To a certain extent, the anti-drunk driving movement is a push towards civility in society. When you act in a dangerous manner that endangers those around you, you are not being a civil person.

5. The antismoking campaign is politically driven, health driven, and economically driven—but there is also a matter of being civil to one another by not exposing a person next to you to something that might be viewed as harmful or unpleasant.

Television and radio broadcasting do not use the "seven dirty words" that the Federal Communications has deemed to be obscene and that decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court. So there is a certain explicitness that is not allowed in the use of those dirty words. This does not apply to film.

In comparison to the profanity children hear, I wonder about their exposure to the magazines at their eye level in a grocery store checkout line. Does an eight or nine or ten-year-old standing in line need to be thinking about the thoughts expressed in those magazine headlines? For me, a few "F" words in a movie are more acceptable than this kind of exposure.

Response: Yes. There is a different standard for language that would be considered vulgar or profane. I think there is a difference in language being used by today’s society. And business is not different from other environments. I believe it occurs across the board in different degrees. Furthermore, what may be a word considered vulgar by one person may not be considered vulgar by another. Today there is a great deal of information being pushed upon society through a variety of media. There are things reported in news, radio, movies and television. If you take a conversation from the movies into the workplace, suddenly it becomes a potentially offensive statement by an individual in the workplace.

Response: Do you know what language some recent presidents and governors used?—Several had language of this sort.

Comment: Two things need to be determined: 1) the intent of the person making a statement that includes profanity and the understanding or comprehension of the person receiving it, and 2) the issue of literacy. In the Marine Corps and in a foundry where I worked, some of these words that many now consider vulgar were considered normal because they didn’t have another word handy to use. These people were male so there is a gender issue. I don’t know what women do when they don’t have a word handy to use. Maybe they use the same vocabulary.

This is also a cultural issue. If you work with different cultures, there is a different meaning given to words you normally use. In Italy, certain words could get you stabbed if you use them with a taxi driver. The lesson is: Are you really trying to be vulgar, are you trying to insult somebody, are you trying to be macho? There is always an intent when speaking. Much that we consider vulgar from one generation to another changes. I have lived long enough to see one change after another in terms of what is considered vulgar. My children in the sixties were saying words that we would never consider using in front of my grandparents who thought it was trash talk. For us it became a normal adjective to use whenever you were annoyed.

Comment: What about the person who uses profane language to put another person down or throw them off balance so they will make a mistake during business negotiations? Some people think this is the normal way to go about business negotiations. It you think it is to your advantage to swear at the other person, you go ahead and do it. This shows there are many dimensions to the use of profanity.

Response: I was interviewing a candidate for the position of head of a network newsroom who was highly recommended. He had good experience, and a good personality. About half way through the interview, he began using the "F" word just as easily as he could. I thought it was as abusive as it could get—I was offended by it. I thought if this person is going to use this word in an interview with me, what would he be like when he’s running a newsroom? So he was no longer a candidate.

Response: In regard to children and young people I think there is peer pressure and social acceptance that drives the use of vulgar language. If the sharp classmates are using vulgar language and smoking, then they want to do that in order to be accepted by these classmates.

Comment: In addition to the peer pressure to use vulgar language that occurs within the group you wish to belong to, there now seems to be a need to stand out in the crowd, since society rewards those who stand out in the group, even though some of their language and actions are not acceptable.

Comment: I believe we recognize that: 1) different interpretations of terminology exist, 2) some terms are offensive to some and not to others, 3) sometimes language is driven by age, gender, culture, personality and other things of this nature. The real question is: What do we do today and tomorrow? What do we do as individuals when those situations arise that deal with vulgar language?

We ask ourselves: "Should we try to correct neighborhood children when they cuss or should we say something to their parents?" We’re uncertain of the answer because we’re uncertain if we have the right to tell others how they should behave in everyday life. In the workplace, the situation is different. There is a clearer answer to the following questions: Do you have the right not to hire someone who uses profanity in an interview? Do you have the right to reprimand if vulgar language is used on the job? Do you have the right to impose penalties to prevent such incidents? The answer to these questions is clearly "yes." The reason it is yes is because you have the right to do so as an employer. You have the right to say this kind of behavior is not acceptable because it could be offensive to people in this environment. If the employer does not assume this right, then in that small setting you will be unable to address this situation. If parents don’t exercise their rights and address the situation—or if the employer doesn’t exercise the right to address the situation—then nothing happens and there is no improvement. The quality of life will be improved if people take the rights they do have when these occasions occur. Today almost no one is taking that right.

Moderator: In preparing for this meeting I asked another manager who is involved in the work of the Council: " Is vulgar language a real problem in your organization?" This person, who is in a service industry, replied that the problem arises on a regular basis. Usually an employee’s use of profane language is in response to the use of that language by a customer—who may be in a genuine rage or may be trying to intimidate the employee. The company has to make it clear that the use of vulgar language is not acceptable even if provoked. The employee is given a warning the first time; a second offense leads to dismissal. This is an example of a company saying it is our right to regulate the kind of language our employees use in the workplace because it reflects on the company and the values we stand for.

Comment: In our Western culture, we have such a strong emphasis on the individual having rights that we find it hard to accept the fact that our society demands something of us. In the Eastern culture, one would more frequently find a philosophy that says: You are only part of all of us. With this kind of thinking it is much easier to live with respect for others. In the West, we have a dilemma because the right that protects the group is a right that basically we find hard to accept. We depend on a philosophy that says: I am an individual; I have rights and generally speaking if they interfere with some one else’s, that’s a problem I do not have to worry about.

Comment: My workplace is in a classroom where I teach in the field of business. I have plenty of opportunity to instruct in what is an acceptable vocabulary—particularly for people who are interested in education and furthering their careers. To speak properly using an acceptable, possibly not correct, but acceptable vocabulary is important. I have never had anyone say they objected to this subject being brought up in class. You can reach a lot of people this way.

Response: I can only speak for my own observations. I think there is a general feeling that the newsroom without this kind of language is a better place to work now than it was.

Comment: My experience has always been in the restaurant business that has a very labor-intensive environment. In this setting, I found that the more you make a work environment stress free, with less harassment and a more relaxed, open environment, the more productive your employees will be.

John Butte began his news career as a producer, reporter and photographer in Louisville, San Francisco and Detroit. Prior to his current position with Ohio News Network, he was VP/News Director of NBC affiliate WTHR-TV in Indianapolis, Indiana winning numerous national and regional awards with his expanded and improved Channel 13 Eyewitness News. He received his B.S. in Radio and Television Journalism from Indiana University.

Henry J. Leuchter is a retired psychiatrist who is currently a consultant to the Interprofessional Commission of Ohio. He has an MD from the University of Berlin and a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. His training and experience has been in internal medicine, public health and psychiatry. He has worked primarily in Ohio where he has received several honors for his contribution to medicine and mental health.

Stephen D. Warren is a graduate of The Ohio State University. In his current position he directs company programs in franchising, purchasing and community relations which enhance the economic participation of minorities and women within the Wendys’ system. He also provides direction for corporate initiatives relating to the company’s standards of business practices and its Code of Conduct.

Council for Ethics in Economics
125 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3605 U.S.A.
(614) 221-8661
FAX: (614) 221-8707

Website designed and maintained by CINErgy Media Communication.
cinergy@cinecomm.com