Using Politeness Theory to Deconstruct How Preregistrant Pharmacists Approach Disagreement in the Workplace

Abstract

ObjectiveUsing politeness theory, this study investigates how preregistrant pharmacists engage in workplace disputes. MethodsOverall, 56 students participated in 2 mock job judgment scenarios. In scenario A (n = 25), the conflict was with a colleague of lower hierarchical status, while in scenario B (n = 32), the conflict was with a colleague of equal hierarchical status. Using politeness theory, responses were coded into 3 tiers: (1) engagement in the face-threatening act (FTA); (2) use of on/off-record approaches; and (3) communicative strategies. For tier 1, reasons for engaging in the FTA were also coded. Results89% of the participants indicated they would unequivocally engage in the FTA. For scenario A, the pharmacist’s roles and responsibilities (40%) and for scenario B, situational urgency/safety (65%) were the key drivers. Scenario A participants were more likely to use an on-record approach (80%) than those in scenario B (68%). Empathetic approaches (56%) were more common in scenario A, while explanatory approaches (64%) were more frequent in scenario B. ConclusionThis study shows that preregistrant pharmacists are aware of the principles of face-work. While the study only reflects what participants believe they would do, not their actual ability in professional disputes, it supports current research that students need simulated low-stakes opportunities to practice communication skills before entering the workplace, especially where situational urgency is present. Integration of politeness theory in workshop and feedback design could help students to link awareness to actual interaction, although the theory should be expanded to integrate urgency as a factor impacting all levels of interactional decision-making.