When it's better to be deferential
with peers and when it's not
The dictionary defines deference as respectful yielding to the judgment, opinion or will of another person, including acknowledging their rank or position.
In the workplace we show deference verbally and nonverbally, by politeness, hedging, softening our language, being agreeable and accommodating. It also communicates that we are not here to compete with any one person.
Alison R. Fragale, associate professor of organizational behavior at the University of North Carolina, made a study of deference and its effects. She concludes that it may make things run smoothly in an office and avoid conflicts. But work groups waste a lot of time with mutual deference.
Individuals may not speak out when they have a better idea because they want to avoid any conflict. They want to avoid being competitive, but competition can often lead to progress and achievement.
Managers and leaders often ask how they can create efficient work groups that get tasks done. The best results come from appointing a leader at the onset because that gives the group some form of hierarchy and avoids ambiguity about who is in charge.
In an office setting of peers, a leader may not be appointed, but an unofficial leader comes to the fore and once recognized can help the group make better progress.
It's not unusual for a leader not to have that title. The best ones want peers to speak up with their ideas and skip the deferential climate.