Using politeness theory to deconstruct how pre-registrant pharmacists approach disagreement in the workplace.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Using politeness theory, this study investigates how pre-registrant pharmacists engage in workplace disputes. METHOD(S): Fifty six students participated in two mock job judgement 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 three 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. RESULT(S): 89% 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. CONCLUSION(S): This study shows that pre-registrant 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 practise 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 on all levels of interactional decision-making.Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.