We’re all familiar with ghosting in the world of online dating – the practice of abruptly ending all communication with someone without any elaboration or explanation. This kind of behaviour now seems to have spread into the world of work, where it is manifested in several ways:
• Hiring new employees
The recruitment process is fraught with ghosting opportunities. At the most basic level, many employers never respond to unsuccessful candidates, even after shortlisting and interviewing. More troublingly, there is growing evidence that employers and recruiters are ghosting successful candidates, confirming that they would like to offer them the job and then dropping all contact with them. Presumably, this is the sign of a change of heart – a better candidate has come along or the requirement for a new employee has been reassessed. But employers who do not see the necessity of communicating this fact to candidates are causing a great deal of unnecessary anxiety and upset.
• Interviewing for jobs
It works both ways, and potential employees are quite capable of ghosting employers. In a job market where there are growing labour shortages, employees find themselves in a powerful position. It is quite common for them to agree to an interview and then simply not show up because they have had a more attractive offer, or perhaps they have had a change of heart and decided not to move jobs. Again, they fail to see that it is only polite to notify the potential employers of their decision, but instead leave them hanging, wasting time and resources.
• No-shows
A new employee is offered a job, receives all the relevant paperwork, and confirms a start date. Then, on the agreed first day of work, they simply don’t show up. Maybe they have changed their mind, or received a better offer, but there is no attempt to contact the employer and inform them that they will have to re-start the recruiting process.
• Abandoning ship
We’re all familiar with the notion of the good resignation: the carefully worded letter, the interview with management, the constructive notice period when responsibilities are handed over and everyone works together to ensure a smooth transition, the convivial leaving party. Imagine dispensing with all this and simply not turning up at work ever again, with no formal resignation or notice period. Frantic employers may well try to get in touch with their errant employees and find themselves ghosted – no response to emails, texts, calls, and no explanation.
• Failed networking
The benefits of networking – through apps like LinkedIn or at specially organised events – are much trumpeted in many workplaces. Networking is seen as an effective way of expanding professional contacts, providing access to industry insiders, fellow professionals and potential clients. But if you exchange cards at a networking event, write a friendly follow-up email suggesting further meetings and never receive a reply, you’ve been ghosted.
• Failed pitches
If you reach out to a prospective client and have a friendly exchange or if someone contacts you with a suggested collaboration, then it is normal to send a follow-up email, which goes into more detail about costings, scope, requirements, scheduling and so on. If you do not receive any reply to your follow-up email you’ve been ghosted. You are left hanging, probably after you have put in considerable effort to your pitch, with nowhere to go.
All of these scenarios beg the simple question: why did communication break down? In an era when it is perfectly possible to communicate at one remove, using emails and texts, rather than facing an awkward phone call, it seems baffling that people would choose to opt out of communicating altogether.
There are several possible explanations. The most obvious is that people are stressed at work – overworked, overburdened, up against deadlines. They deal with overload by focusing on essentials and choose not to “waste time” dealing with the niceties of communication. Alternatively, they might simply be people who find it impossibly hard to say no, or to block future avenues of collaboration. They dread the finality of the “shutting down” email and procrastinate, deferring writing it indefinitely. If they leave it long enough, it enters the murky realm of “to deal with eventually” and from there is soon consigned to oblivion. Some people, who tend to be inveterate ghosts both socially and professionally, will abandon any interaction at the first sign of trouble – they prefer to opt for a disappearing act rather than directly confronting difficulties.
It is also possible that our increasingly hybrid workplaces, where there is reduced in-person interaction and an increased reliance on digital communications, are creating a sense of disconnect when it comes to professional relationships. If you have only attended a video interview, interacted with a client by email or networked with colleagues through an app, it is possible that you feel a certain level of disassociation, which you would not experience if you were meeting people in the flesh. This remoteness makes it much easier to be a ruthless non-communicator, who has honed down professional contact to the bare minimum.
Ghosting is obviously extremely rude. It shows little regard for other people and is predicated on an adamant refusal to empathise or imagine how disconcerting or disappointing it might be to be dropped or ignored. Here are some ways to deal with professional ghosting:
• Make it a rule to always answer all emails promptly (set a target of the same day).
• Even if you cannot deal immediately with questions asked or issues raised, you can at least send a holding email, which explains that you have received and noted the incoming communication and you will deal with it in due course.
• If you feel you’re in danger of “forgetting” the emails you have put on hold, put them in a folder and send yourself a reminder to clear the folder at the end of each week.
• If someone appears to ghost you, give them the benefit of the doubt, at least initially. Wait a few days and send a polite reminder. If you still receive no response, move on and try and put the whole issue behind you.
• Take the time every few weeks to review all your incoming communications and make sure that there are no loose ends that have been left unattended. A polite and apologetic email or message will soon redeem the situation.
• Make it a rule that you will always communicate decisions you have made that will have an impact on other people. Whether it is a leave day or unplanned absence or a change of mind about a professional commitment, behave as considerately as you would in the social realm and ensure that everyone is kept fully informed.
• Remember, even when you are communicating disappointing news it is possible to do so kindly and politely. Always fully explain the circumstances behind decisions and sign off with reassurances that you would like to remain in touch, you will be in contact in the future, or you wish the other person well, which will always mitigate any feelings of negativity. No matter how disappointed someone is they will be much more able to move on if they understand the decision.
• If you are an employer or manager, be meticulous about communicating promptly in your workplace. If you set an example of considerate communication to your team or employees, you will be creating a culture where ghosting is not tolerated.
Celebrities have always attracted fans, but the relationship is intensifying, sometimes in problematic ways. Social media is giving fans unprecedented access to celebrities and helping to foster the illusion of relationship. The very real distance between fans and artists is greatly diminished in cyberspace, leading to the phenomenon of the “parasocial relationship”, a term that describes intense, one-sided attachments to celebrities or public figures. Social media also facilitates the formation of vast fan networks, which can whip up hero worship to an alarming degree.
When it all goes wrong, the world of fandom can turn very nasty indeed. There has been a recent spate of incidents at gigs, when over-excited fans have thrown objects (ranging from mobile phones to a bag containing cremated ashes) at performers on stage, in some cases causing actual physical injury. Post-pandemic, live audiences have passionately re-engaged with performers, and this has led to troubling breaches of behavioural norms.
The word fan comes from the Latin fanaticus, meaning “insanely but divinely inspired”. “Stan” is a new term that has recently been coined to denote fans who teeter into the realm of online stalking and whose relationship with their chosen celebrity is deeply troubling. Their fervour when it comes to defending the object of their attention has led to many instances of threatening and toxic behaviour online.
Why do people become fans? It is argued that, on one level, being a fan is a positive trait because it fosters a sense of belonging and group identity. Uniting with other people in admiration and adulation of a celebrity, a sports personality, or a team can be a bonding experience, a shared enthusiasm, which helps to create a distinct social identity. But this is the healthy end of the fan spectrum: psychologists have identified a sliding scale, which tips fans from the enjoyable and socially bonding end to intense personal fixation to borderline pathological adulation. At the extreme end of the spectrum fans display addictive, compulsive and narcissistic behaviour and begin to deviate from social norms, straying into perilous territory.
This disturbing slide into dark obsessiveness is frequently compounded by our current celebrity culture, where the objects of fan worship – whether they are performers, creators or influencers – are expected to “feed” the fans’ single-minded fascination through their own social media presence. This often involves releasing telling details about their private lives, and these tantalising morsels in turn generate yet more obsession and fascination. It is scarcely surprising that some celebrities are refusing to play the game and are increasingly withdrawing from their admiring public.
Clearly, when admiration segues into stalking and harassment, when the desire to interact with celebrities leads to fans actually inflicting physical injury on them, the situation needs to be addressed. If you’re a fan who is lucky enough to enjoy a physical encounter with a celebrity, observe the following etiquette:
How to be a Considerate Fan
• If you’re out and you spot a celebrity, don’t take a surreptitious, clandestine photograph. If you’re spotted, it will compound the celebrity’s paranoia about being stalked. Be up front about it and ask permission. Assess the situation objectively: if the star in question is locked in an intimate conversation with a partner, or having dinner with the family, accept that the most considerate option might be to choose not to intrude and to leave them alone to get on with their lives.
• When it comes to asking if you can take a photograph, you can never be too polite. Use tentative phrases like “Excuse me”, “Would you mind if….?”. or “Could I possibly….?” Remember celebrities are not public property and you do not have an inalienable right to poke a camera at them. If your target asks you to stop photographing or filming, do so immediately, no ifs, no buts. Always thank celebrities politely if they do allow you to photograph them.
• Many fans want selfies with their favourite celebrities. Obviously, if you are seeking the holy grail of the selfie, you must ask politely. If permission is secured, you will of course have to huddle quite close to them, but you must be extremely careful about physical proximity. Never touch them, put your arms around their shoulders, grab a quick kiss. You should always be respectful of their physical boundaries.
• If a celebrity agrees to a selfie, don’t turn it into a production number. Be quick and efficient about taking the photograph – there are bound to be other fans waiting and plenty of people seeking their attention.
• Don’t monopolise celebrities. If you’re queuing up for an autograph or a signed book, bear in mind that other fans are waiting. You may have dreamed of this long-awaited encounter, but you must accept that you are just one of many, and that everyone should have a chance too.
• You know why you’re obsessed with certain celebrities, but they haven’t a clue. So, if you approach someone for an autograph, a photograph, or a selfie, it’s always a good idea to hand out a brief compliment or explanation. Just saying something like “I really loved your performance in xxxxxxxx” or “I read xxxxxxxxx when I was sixteen and it changed my life!”, will make the whole encounter much less transactional and will give the object of your adulation a chance to bask in genuine praise, rather than feeling that they are warding off unwanted advances.
• Keep comments positive. You may have been disappointed by a hero’s latest performance or feel that they have made a bad choice or taken a misstep, but it really is not your business to air your grievances. Remember you do not have a real-life relationship with the celebrity; you are, first and foremost, a fan, and it is your job to be a positive and enthusiastic cheerleader not a carping critic.
• Don’t objectify celebrities. Making intrusive comments about their physical appearance, their clothes, or their sexuality (especially during personal encounters) will make them feel like cheap commodities. Is that really what you want?
• If you feel moved to throw an object on to the stage when a celebrity is performing, accept that you need help. Your perception of the physical boundaries between yourself and the performer has clearly broken down. You may think your action will grab the star’s attention, but you are more likely to find yourself being frogmarched out by security.
“To yawn in the presence of others, to lounge, to put your feet on a chair, to stand with your back to the fire, to take the most comfortable seat in the room, to do anything which shows indifference, selfishness, or disrespect, is unequivocally vulgar and inadmissible.”
Routledge’s Manual of Etiquette, 1860
Scientists are still uncertain about why we yawn. They have identified many triggers that cause yawning, including fatigue, boredom, anxiety, hunger. But the physiological purpose of this universal habit remains enigmatic. Many scientists believe that yawning is a brain cooling mechanism, and its function, which is most apparent when we’re in situations that lack emotional stimulation, is to promote arousal and alertness. Everyone agrees that yawning is highly contagious, rippling through a group and even affecting empathetic dogs. In fact, yawning is associated with empathy: when humans watch other people yawn, brain areas known to be involved in social function are activated.
Yawning is considered rude in most circumstances. As we can see from the above quote, it was viewed as the height of bad manners during the Victorian era, and many of these attitudes still prevail today. While we no longer dismiss yawning as “vulgar”, it is seen as rude and disrespectful because it implies that the yawner is bored and is making no attempt to conceal the fact.
Of course, this is not necessarily the case and sometimes overwhelming fatigue can cause a bout of yawning. If that is the case, and you feel you are about to be overwhelmed by a yawning attack, you might do well to signal the fact verbally. Say something like “I do apologise, but I didn’t get very much sleep last night and I can’t stop yawning.” If you do this, you will be indicating to the people you are with that you’re not yawning because you have been overcome by boredom. However, it is best not to inflict your fatigue on other people – if you’re too tired to socialise without yawning, you should be in bed.
If you want to stifle a yawn, you should cover your mouth with your hand and apologise. It is better to acknowledge the yawn politely (“Excuse me”), as it is extremely difficult to conceal a yawn, especially if it is accompanied by sound effects and watering eyes. If you feel a yawn is coming on, try taking deep, slow breaths and controlling your breathing. If you’re in a situation where you’re being closely scrutinised, taking a sip of water will help to disguise your yawn.
Be aware that uninhibited yawning, which many people feel they can safely indulge in on the phone, is audible because it distorts the sound of the voice and can be very off-putting. If you communicate frequently through video messaging or FaceTime, remember that yawns are particularly incriminating on a screen, where other people are focused on your facial expression and there is nowhere to hide.
If you are mid-conversational flow and you see people around you yawning, take note. If more than one person is yawning, then it is likely that you are being boring, or perhaps indulging in a monologue, which is essentially depriving your audience of the stimulus of participating in the conversation, which would probably solve the yawning problem. The reaction isn’t very polite but it’s telling you something, and you’d do well to change the subject or ask some questions and re-focus the conversation.
If you’re hosting, and you see your guests yawning, they might well be ready for departure or bed. You should also be alert to the sight of people stifling their yawns, a clear indication that they’d like the evening’s socialising to end but are too polite to make the first move. If they’re staying overnight, acknowledge that it’s getting late, and bring the evening to a close. If they’re going home, you will need to wait for your guests to make moves to depart – you might speed them on their way if you yawn yourself (which you very likely will, as yawning is infectious). If all else fails you can always drop heavy hints by beginning to subtly start clearing away glasses and plates (avoid loud clattering in the kitchen), a tried and tested signal that it’s time for bed.
At Debrett’s we have often written about the necessity of writing thank-you notes and today we are focusing on thanks for hospitality. A letter thanking a host is known as a “bread and butter letter” a term that probably originated in America in the 19th century. Mrs Lyman, writing in The Ladies’ Home Journal of February 1894 opines: “The ‘bread and butter letter,’ as it is sometimes called, because it is supposed to be an expression of thanks for what bread and butter stands for, should be written within twenty-four hours after arrival at one’s destination, to the hostess whose hospitality one has been enjoying.”
So far, so prescriptive. But society has changed a great deal over the last century, and for many hosts the prompt receipt of a handwritten note is a distant memory. While we are great supporters of the handwritten letter and have written at length about the fact that the effort the writer has gone to (locating stationery, envelope, stamp, handwriting the note legibly) is seen as being commensurate with their gratitude, we must accept that thank-you notes are increasingly sent by email and text.
The main point is that some sort of thanks should be sent. It is fine to send a quick text when you’ve been given an informal supper by old friends. More formal entertaining, and overnight stays, will warrant a lengthier missive, whether it is by post or email. You need to demonstrate your gratitude and appreciation to your hosts; moreover, most hosts will be grateful for the affirmation and reassurance that they receive from a thank-you note, which is a great way of allaying any social anxiety a host might be feeling after an event. We cannot argue with Mrs Lyman’s assertion that bread and butter letters should be sent soon after the event – if you leave it more than two or three days it will begin to look like a careless afterthought.
Whatever the means of sending the message, the important thing is to make it sound heartfelt and to resist formulaic phrasing and meaningless clichés. If a thank-you letter sounds like something that was written on autopilot it is as good as useless. This is an example of how not to write a thank-you note:
Dear Maisie and Felix
Thank you for having me to stay last weekend.
I really enjoyed my stay. The food was delicious! Unfortunately, my train was cancelled on the way back, and I didn’t get home until midnight.
I look forward to seeing you both again soon.
Love
Harriet
This letter fails on several levels. It is flat and dutiful and completely generic. No mention is made of any specific hospitality (the company, the food that was served, the house and garden, an outing etc). The complaint about the train rounds the whole letter off on a needlessly negative note. There is nothing the hosts can do about the vagaries of public transport, but they are made to feel vaguely responsible. Thank-you notes should always be relentlessly positive and any inconveniences or difficulties associated with the occasion should never be revealed.
The example below demonstrates the effusive tone and small details that should distinguish your thank-you note:
Dear Maisie and Felix
I just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you so much for all your generous hospitality last weekend.
The garden was looking superb, and we were so lucky with the weather – it was so relaxing to be able to sit outside late in the evening, sipping your lovely English wine and watching the sunset.
Thanks for introducing me to your neighbours – Nathan was really entertaining and I’m hoping to meet up with Eleanor when she’s up in London next week. You’re lucky to have such a convivial couple living nearby.
I very much appreciated all the delicious food, particularly the fresh mackerel we bought down at the harbour front. What a treat!
I do hope you’ll be able to come and visit me in London very soon. Do let me know when you’ve had a chance to look at your diaries and we can make plans.
Much love
Harriet
This letter is warm and positive. The writer picks out various highlights of the weekend (the garden, the wine, the neighbours, the food), and comments on them in a very upbeat way, demonstrating that she savoured every moment and appreciated all the hospitality. Focusing on details (the English wine, the mackerel) demonstrates that certain aspects of the hospitality were outstanding and therefore worthy of comment. Approbation (of the garden and the neighbours) reassures the hosts, who will feel validated by all the compliments. It is always a good idea to end a thank-you note with offers of reciprocal hospitality – even it they are fairly vague, they indicate that the event was a success and reinforce feelings of friendship.
If you feel that you may have transgressed in some way (over-boisterous drunken behaviour, an unpleasant row with a fellow guest, a spill or breakage), now is the time to apologise. Add a paragraph offering sincere regrets, but only after you have expressed your gratitude, and try to wrap up the apology in a compliment. For example: “I am so sorry if I over-indulged in your delicious single malt whisky on Saturday night. I fear the political discussion may have become over-heated and can only apologise – you were obviously far too lavish with your hospitality.” Or, “I really must apologise for my clumsiness: you were so understanding when I broke the little vase in my bedroom. I shall be keeping an eye open for a suitable replacement.”
As we read reports of unseemly barracking and tussles in the hallowed Long Room at Lord's (fallout over a controversial dismissal in the Ashes test match, which was deemed by many not to be in “the spirit of cricket”), we have been contemplating the whole issue of defusing anger. The cricketing world is reeling from the repercussions from a very rare event, but anger is a frequent challenge in everyday life and in the workplace.
If you are confronted by an angry person – whether they’re a client, a partner, friend or colleague – it’s easy to feel upset and flustered. Regardless of the reason for their anger, it’s a common reaction to respond in kind, which escalates the situation needlessly. It is a far better idea to stay calm, to attempt to understand the reasons for their emotion, and to do your best to acknowledge and resolve the problem.
Recognising anger can be difficult, since many people do not display it openly, resorting instead to passive-aggression, which you will need to detect. Look out for these telltale signs:
• A disengaged and distant demeanour
• A refusal to respond to requests and questions
• Sulking and withdrawing
• A tense and taut facial expression: a forced, tight-lipped smile
• Secretive behaviour
• Lack of eye contact
Whether you are faced with someone who is volatile and enraged, or dealing with someone who is displaying all the signs of passive-aggression, your strategies should essentially be the same:
• Assess the situation: if you feel the person is completely out of control and judge their behaviour to be threatening enlist the help of other people. Do not deal with the situation on your own.
• You need to stay composed in these circumstances, so practise techniques such as deep breathing to calm yourself down. If you feel reciprocal anger is beginning to build – a common occurrence since anger is a very contagious emotion – take a break and reassess the situation.
• You must understand the reasons for a person’s anger. In the case of someone who is behaving passive-aggressively, this may involve asking delicate, probing questions (“you don’t seem yourself this morning, is something wrong?”). Once you begin to unpick the reasons for anger, you may well find that the emotion has nothing directly to do with you – it might well have been caused by stress or emotional overload. It is much easier to cope with someone’s anger if you can distance yourself from it emotionally, so try and understand the reasons at the outset.
• Don’t dismiss the anger. You may feel that the angry person is suffering from a massive overreaction, and that their rage is quite unconscionable, but saying something like “I really don’t see what you’re getting so worked up about” is liable to have explosive consequences. Instead, acknowledge the emotion: “I can see that you’re very angry”, which is the first step towards understanding the rage and defusing it.
• Once you have understood the cause of the anger, you need to establish the exact nature of the grievances. If somebody says, “Nobody takes any notice of me in this office”, for example, this is a generic assertion of a problem. You will need to drill down, ask questions, and you will probably find that specific instances of neglect or disregard lie at the root of the outburst. Listen carefully and empathetically and – no matter how much you may disagree with what is being said – do not interrupt the speaker; this is a red rag to a bull, demonstrating that they are not being given the attention they deserve.
• When it is your turn to speak, remember to keep calm. Consciously lower your voice, speak slowly and adopt neutral, non-threatening body language (no leaning forward, using aggressive hand gestures, thrusting your face towards the other person, invading their personal space). Avoid bland, clichéd statements like “I know how you feel” or “I understand your anger”. Instead, make direct reference to what has been said, demonstrating through reiteration that you have truly been listening. For example, saying “so you feel that I didn’t give you space to speak in yesterday’s meeting?” is much more effective than saying “That sounds frustrating”.
• If you profoundly disagree with what the angry person is saying and feel that their rage is based on misunderstandings, paranoia, or misplaced arrogance, now is not the time to point this out – you will simply escalate the situation. You will need to address their misunderstandings, but for the time being park the discussion. Say something like “Thank you so much for explaining that to me. I think we really do need to sit down and find a way forward, but let’s not do that when emotions are running high.” Follow through on that promise and schedule a meeting or a time when you can re-visit the discussion.
• Offer a solution. Once you understand the anger, and providing you acknowledge that it is legitimate, you should come back with a positive suggestion. In some cases, you will understand the reason for the emotion, see what has caused it and be able to instantly promise that this will never happen again. But all too often the situation is not so cut and dried; you may feel the person is flying off the handle, or that a colleague, friend etc may have been traduced. In cases like this, you will have to offer a more conditional solution, which promises that efforts will be made to understand and avoid future occurrences: “I understand that you felt we were overly dismissive of your suggestions. I’ll talk to the team about this and in future we’ll make sure we give you more time and space…”
• Apologise, even if you’re doing it on somebody else’s behalf. If your behaviour has caused the outburst, then it is obvious that you must apologise. But even if this is not the case, you can still offer an apology, which acknowledges that person’s pain: “I’m so sorry Bill made you feel that way etc etc”. Whatever the source, an apology will go a long way towards mollifying an angry person.
• Address the anger. If somebody is much given to intemperate outbursts of rage, or is an inveterate passive-aggressive sulker, it can have an extremely harmful effect on relationship dynamics. In this instance, it would be a good idea to address the behaviour (though wait until a moment of comparative calm). Do not approach the person with anger issues in an accusatory way, but instead emphasise the negative impact their behaviour has on both you and other people. So avoid statements that begin with “you”, eg “when you start yelling and screaming you terrify the junior team members” and try to frame it from a first-person perspective: “I really find it uncomfortable seeing how terrified the junior team members are when they have to confront shouting and yelling.”
As always, use good manners as a tool to disarm and mediate. Your mantra should be to always remain polite, whatever the provocation, and you will find that civility and courtesy will go a long way towards alleviating potentially explosive situations.
Debrett's has partnered with Vauxhall on a new guide to electric vehicle etiquette.
According to Vauxhall research, more than three-quarters of UK drivers said they are unclear on EV etiquette, while almost 90% think a lack of charging guidance puts drivers off making the switch to electrification.
This new guide answers all your EV etiquette conundrums, including how to queue in an orderly fashion, negotiating charging time with fellow motorists, and being a good EV house guest.
As the sporting summer unfolds, we inevitably find ourselves locked into debates about what constitutes sporting behaviour, gamesmanship, and the overwhelming urge to win by fair means or foul.
We are contemplating a highlight of the tennis calendar with the beginning of the much-awaited Wimbledon fortnight. As thousands of fans flock to SW19 to enjoy the atmosphere of the All England Club or simply to set up camp outside and enjoy the grass court action with fellow enthusiasts on giant outdoor screens, the annual debate rumbles on about tennis players’ on-court behaviour: is it getting worse?
There have always been tennis mavericks who have indulged in abusive on-court behaviour, although the majority of competitors play with calm professionalism and good grace. However, in recent years the phenomenon of playing to the crowds seems to have become more evident, and there are certainly elements of the fan base who rejoice in certain players’ ‘bad boy’ image and enjoy egging them on. As a result, matches can become raucously partisan, with fans screaming encouragement at inappropriate moments (just before the opponent is about to serve, for example) and enthusiastically cheering on their increasingly frazzled player when arguments break out over line calls. All this is a far cry from the hushed and reverent atmosphere that Wimbledon fostered.
Why do tennis players, and other competitors in a range of elite sports, feel compelled to abuse linesmen and umpires and show them no respect? Why are some players guilty of egregious acts of gamesmanship, which can be defined as using a range of techniques to unsettle their opponents and throw them off their game – time wasting tactics, delaying their serve until the last possible permissible moment, playing to the crowd? Much of the answer probably lies in their coaching and early initiation into the game. In the increasingly cutthroat atmosphere of professional sports, some coaches create a motivational climate that is performance-based, with a relentless emphasis on winning at all costs. Focusing on sporting behaviour and assisting young players to find ways of burying their seething emotions of rage, panic and frustration beneath a calm, unruffled exterior is seen as a time-wasting distraction from the main event: winning matches.
If bad behaviour is not rooted out and dealt with early in a player’s career it can become entrenched and extremely hard to shift. If fans encourage and applaud a player’s worst antics, their bad behaviour can begin to define them: they play up to the crowds and the abuses escalate. The most troubling aspect of all these antics is that young up and coming players tend to ape their heroes and may replicate their worst behaviour.
There is very little the professional authorities can do about players’ internal demons. If a player is locked in an agony of self-castigation and frustration, they become a sad spectacle for crowds and court officials alike. The authorities can only intercede if these volcanic emotions are manifested externally, through racket abuse or hitting the ball into the crowd. In these cases, the player will be fined.
However, it is a different matter if players turn their rage and frustration on court officials. Sometimes outbursts of foul-mouthed ranting and invective can go on for an unconscionable length of time before steps are taken. Players are fined for bad behaviour but in tennis, as in other sports, the fines are in no way commensurate with the player’s earning abilities. A fine of a few thousand pounds must mean very little to a player who can earn hundreds of thousands of pounds at a single tournament. Perhaps it is time that more serious sanctions are explored, such as a default or exclusion from future tournaments.
If you’re attending Wimbledon this year, think about your behaviour as a spectator. Follow time-honoured sporting rules: it’s fine to applaud the players you’re supporting enthusiastically, but it is equally important to do their opponent the courtesy of applauding their best shots as well. It’s extremely disrespectful – both to other players and to your fellow spectators – to yell out encouragement in the middle of games. Booing and whistling or standing up mid-rally and waving your fist at the players, are all unacceptable behaviour. Remember, being a passionately loyal supporter should never be about behaving in boorish and threatening ways to the opposition. It’s all about encouraging your favoured player to scale new mountains of sporting achievement, not about crushing and demoralising the opponent.
Whether you’re an aspiring, or established, tennis player, follow these simple and time-honoured rules for sporting behaviour:
• Always apologise when you win a point because of a fluke, eg. because of a net cord or a mishit. That way, you will be acknowledging that winning should really be about skill and finesse, not good luck.
• By the same token, you should accept your opponent’s outrageous good luck with a wry smile and an ability to move on. Luck is cyclical and your turn will come again.
• The self-congratulatory fist pump is now a near-ubiquitous gesture in tennis but remember there is a big difference between a moment of discreet self-satisfaction and the urge to make the gesture towards the opponent, which can be seen as wind-up.
• If your opponent plays an outstandingly good shot, acknowledge it – this can be done by simply raising your racket in approbation.
• If your opponent begins to lose the plot and starts questioning line calls, screaming and shouting, you will need to find a strategy for avoiding a tit-for-tat battle. Remember, your good behaviour should be innate and robust enough to resist the worst assaults. If you can rise above your opponent’s fury, you are showing yourself to be a better person – and your tennis will probably improve if you refuse to become distracted.
• Whatever the result, and however badly your opponent has behaved, respect the rules of the game and shake your opponent’s hand, with a murmured “well played” at the end of the match. If you’re the winner, remember that gloating or triumphalism should be ruthlessly controlled.
• Above all, remember that spectators want to watch a supreme display of sporting prowess, not an ugly spectacle of threatening and aggressive behaviour. Let the tennis do the talking.
As many of us increasingly conduct our day-to-day relationships through social media, as well as relying on online sources for news and gossip, we are becoming less and less able to distinguish between personal connections in the real world and our virtual relationships. It is important that we pay attention to our online persona and how we interact online, much as we would in the real world. Our online life can have far-reaching real-world impact, so it needs to be navigated with great care.
Unfortunately, the speed and immediacy of online communication and the fact that social media exchanges are frequently taking place within an isolated, de-contextualised space (removed from the mediating judgment of other people) can mean that all too often we act on impulse. If we are angry, upset or outraged we are far more likely to communicate impulsively, without stopping to think about consequences. Whether we are contributing a vitriolic comment to a thread associated with a news story, tweeting dismissively about a celebrity, or responding intemperately to a friend, we seem to have lost all sense that our actions have real-world repercussions. In the heat of the moment, we lose our ability to pause, think empathetically about our ‘victim’ or target, logically examine how our remark will make them feel, assess the magnitude of any potential fallout. These are all thought processes that we deploy all the time in our face-to-face relationships, ensuring that we do not behave in a disinhibited, unpredictable or damaging way. But for many of us these checks and balances seem to have been completely forfeited in the virtual world.
We may feel that the online world has freed us from the constraint of conventional social relationships but posting impulsively has a very real aftermath. Very little that we post online is completely private. We can adjust and fine tune our privacy settings, but the fact remains that our most unbridled outpourings have been endowed with a measure of permanence because of the medium we have chosen to use. They are written in black and white; they can be read and accessed (even if it only by the chosen few); screenshots can be taken; they can be disseminated and fall into the wrong hands; even if they are subsequently deleted, they may well have an afterlife. Social media posts, unlike the spoken word, are unambiguously concrete; they can be duplicated and are indisputable (and of course carry the weight of evidence in a court of law).
It is scarcely surprising that your online persona can be used in evidence against you. Potential employers, friends, stalkers, enemies or rivals are all perfectly capable of tracking you down online and may well find damaging material. Encountering your drunken rants, vitriolic outbursts and no-holds-barred accounts of nights out and mornings after may well stymie that all-important job offer or jeopardise an important friendship.
Given the availability and longevity of online material, it would be logical to take extra care when navigating online relationships and to be cautious and tentative about what you reveal, though all too frequently this is not the case. If you are interested in taking back control of your online persona, your priority must be to curb impulsive behaviour. Whether you’re liking cute pictures of kittens, or railing against a politician’s latest travesties, get into the habit of pausing for a few moments and thinking about the potential reactions, both positive and negative, that you will elicit. Then follow these simple tips:
• Don’t go online when you’re feeling emotional
When you’re in the grip of strong emotions you’re much more likely to behave impulsively. So try to teach yourself to take a beat. Pause, walk away from your phone or laptop, make a cup of coffee, stare at the garden, do a household task. Any of these mundane actions will take the heat out of your feelings and help you to calm down. By staving off the impulse to act impetuously you have given yourself the time and space to think, calmly and logically, about what your next step should be.
• Find another, safer outlet
If something online has made you furious and you feel an overwhelming impulse to start trolling the offender, try to vent your rage elsewhere. Call up your partner or a good friend you can trust and have a rant; at worst they may find it boring, but they are not the subjects of the attack so they will be able to soak up some of your anger.
• Try using private communication
If you are offended by something a friend or colleague has said, don’t respond in a public forum. Call them up and discuss the issue in person or send them a direct message. Try and resolve your problem without inviting an audience – public comments will elicit input from other people and may escalate the situation.
• Protect your privacy
Remember just how accessible your posts are to a wider world and remind yourself that it is very important to compartmentalise different sides of your life and persona. If you want to truly safeguard your privacy, don’t post; try phoning, texting or interacting in person instead.
• Delete and apologise
If you have posted impulsively and instantly regret it, take the post down if possible. Accept that it may already have had a damaging impact and apologise. If you have attacked an individual, send a heartfelt direct message of regret, accepting that you acted foolishly and impulsively. Where appropriate, post apologies on public forums.
• Take a break
We’re all beginning to accept that the internet is addictive and compulsive. Many of us find it unbearable being offline and have become dependent on rapid-fire interactions and feedback, excited to feel that we are plugged into a whole universe of possibility. However, the downside of all this activity and engagement is poor concentration, distraction and detachment. Ultimately, this can lead to feelings of emotional disassociation and lack of empathy – precisely the conditions in which impulsive, and damaging, behaviour occurs. If you feel you are beginning to suffer from internet addiction, try your utmost to take a break – switching off your phone and initiating some face-to-face interactions with friends and family is a good place to start.
Image: Victorian depiction of early 19th-century Christmas celebration by Charles Green, Wikimedia Commons
Formal dining, like much of Victorian life, was strictly circumscribed by the rules of etiquette. Good table manners were, of course, paramount, but great emphasis was also placed on invitations, punctuality, precedence and a proper seating plan. In this, as in so much else, savoir-faire was a prime requisite for anyone who sought status within the social hierarchy.
It was the obligation of the host to ensure that their formal dinner ran seamlessly. “A dinner, to be excellent, need not consist of a great variety of dishes: but everything should be of the best, and the cookery should be perfect. That which should be cool should be cool as ice; that which should be hot should be smoking; the attendance should be rapid and noiseless; the guests well assorted; the wines of the best quality; the host attentive and courteous; the room well lighted; and the time punctual.”
There was no tolerance of indecision or prevarication when it came to invitations: they should be “replied to immediately, and unequivocally accepted or declined. Once accepted, nothing but an event of the last importance should cause you to fail in your engagement.”
On the night of the dinner, guests were expected to be “exactly punctual”, with some etiquette manuals opining that it was better not to show up at all (providing one sent an apology) than to be late and to inconvenience the hostess and the other guests.
The next great ritual was the “taking down” to dinner. Once the guests were all assembled, the hosts took each gentleman aside and pointed out the lady whom he was to conduct to the table. If that lady was a stranger, it was up to the gentleman to single her out beforehand and seek an introduction. When dinner was announced the gentleman offered the lady his arm and the couples proceeded down to the dining room in order of precedence.
The tricky matter of precedence was the host’s responsibility: “When the society is of a distinguished kind, the host will do well to consult Debrett or Burke, before arranging his visitors.” In less elevated company a simple rule of thumb was followed: “The lady who is the greatest stranger should be taken down by the master of the house, and the gentleman who is the greatest stranger should conduct the hostess. Married ladies take precedence of single ladies, elder ladies of younger ones, and so forth.”
The vexed question of where to seat the guests could make or break a dinner party, then as now, and the advice in etiquette manuals will be familiar. There were certain unbreakable rules in relation to the prime positions at table: “The lady of the house takes the head of the table. The gentleman who led her down to dinner occupies the seat on her right hand, and the gentleman next in order of precedence, that on her left. The master of the house takes the foot of the table. The lady whom he escorted sits on his right hand, and the lady next in order of precedence on his left, &c.” Married couples were, of course, separated unless they were recently wed, in which case they were allowed to sit together.
As far as seating the rest of the guests, hosts were advised to be tactful and mindful of the social dynamics. A “good talker” should be placed at the centre of the table where he could be seen and heard by all; it was obviously a bad idea to place two such people in proximity. Putting gentlemen of the same profession next to each other was ill-advised as they were liable to fall immediately into an exclusive conversation that would be of no interest to the surrounding guests. The politics, religion, and general opinions of the various guests should all be taken into consideration.
As soon as the guests were seated, they were advised to remove their gloves and place the table napkin on their knees.
Formal dinners proceeded with stately predictability. First was the soup, which was followed by the fish course (by the mid-19th century serving fish and soup together was considered old-fashioned). It is firmly stated that “All well-ordered dinners begin with soup, whether in summer or winter.” The soup was dispensed from the tureen by the lady of the house and bowls were sent round to each diner. Firm advice was given to diners not to ask for second helpings of fish or soup, as it might delay the arrival of the main course and inconvenience fellow diners.
The third course introduced the principal dishes of roast and boiled meats and fowl, accompanied by various side plates. Increasingly, the “French fashion” was followed, and meat was carved on the sideboard by servants and handed round, which relieved the host, or a designated guest, of the responsibility of carving (although it was advised that every gentleman should acquire the art of competent carving). When dessert arrived, gentlemen were requested to help neighbouring ladies, serving strawberries, passing cherries or grapes, and volunteering to peel apples or peaches.
When it came to helping neighbours, diners were told that it was “inexpressibly vulgar” to offer to “assist”; instead, phrases such as “Shall I send you some mutton?” or “may I help you to grouse?” were recommended.
Today, we are inclined to wait until everyone is ready to eat, unless explicitly instructed otherwise, but the Victorians took the opposite view. “As soon as you are helped, begin to eat; or, if the viands are too hot for your palate, take up your knife and fork and appear to begin. To wait for others is now not only old fashioned, but ill-bred.”
Servants were usually responsible for taking wine round the table and filling glasses and the gentlemen were firmly instructed to take charge of the glasses of the ladies next to them and ensure their glasses were filled. It was considered inappropriate for ladies to ask for wine, but entirely acceptable for them to decline it, so if they wished to drink, they were reliant on the good offices of their male neighbours. Expectations of ladies’ wine consumption seem surprisingly high: “Young ladies seldom drink more than three glasses of wine at dinner but married ladies, professional ladies, and those accustomed to society, and habits of affluence, will habitually take five or even six, whether in their own homes or at the tables of their friends.”
As far as general conduct was concerned, guests were advised to eat “deliberately and decorously” and to ensure that they were not “too much engrossed in attending to the wants of the stomach, to join in the cheerful interchange of civilities and thought”. Gentlemen were expected to be assiduous in attending to the needs of the ladies, whilst showing due appreciation of the “delicacy, moderation, and fastidiousness” of their appetites.
At the end of the meal, after coffee and liqueurs had been handed round, the ladies retired to the drawing room, leaving the gentlemen to their cigars, cognac and conversation. When the ladies left the dining room, the gentlemen all stood and remained standing until the last lady had left the room. Lingering too long in the dining room was considered a “bad compliment” to the hostess and her female guests: “a refined gentleman is always temperate”.
Obviously much of the burden of organising the dinner fell on the hostess and she was advised never to be “dependent on the taste and judgment of her cook”. If her cook was not up to the task, it was perfectly acceptable to order a meal from a reputable restaurant.
Hostesses were expected to be calm, discreet and attentive throughout the evening, never displaying a whisper of anxiety or stress. It was considered bad form to reprove or give audible directions to their servants. If they were the mother of small children, they were adamantly advised not to allow their children to make an appearance at any point in the evening: “Children are out of place on these occasions. Your guests only tolerate them through politeness; their presence interrupts the genial flow of after-dinner conversation.”
The hostess, in short, must “neglect nothing, forget nothing, put all her guests at their ease, encourage the timid, draw out the silent, and pay every possible attention to the requirements of each and all around her. No accident must ruffle her temper. No disappointment must embarrass her. She must see her old china broken without a sigh, and her best glass shattered with a smile.”
An article in Cassells Family Magazine (1875) gives us a highly prescriptive account of the ideal Victorian dining room. The author confidently asserts that “warmth, comfort and hospitality” are the goals of the décor, and therefore rich and glowing colours are recommended. Rooms should be wallpapered in crimson, oak or green, with perhaps a little gold in the pattern to give a “brightening effect”. If the owner of the room is lucky enough to possess a fine array of paintings, these should be displayed against a plain and delicate colour, such as pale green, buff or salmon.
On the floor a Turkey carpet is recommended: its warm colours contribute to the cosiness of the room, and it is also extremely hard-wearing.
Curtains should be heavy and substantial: “Cloth, woollen rep, and Cotelan (a German manufacture made of silk, wool, and cotton) seem to be the most suitable for the purpose; a plain colour bordered with a trimming to correspond will look the best”.
Mahogany furniture is highly recommended, and it ias pointed out that the furniture should be “en suite”: mismatched items of furniture will give the room a “patched and forlorn look”. A four-square dining table, with legs at the corners, is decreed to be the most convenient: “the most inconvenient is the Pembroke table, whose four legs are in such awkward positions that they are always in everybody’s way, and invariably get kicked or knocked by someone. Then there is a dining-table whose legs are clustered in the middle, and form a pedestal; this has its drawbacks, for the weight of the dishes presses most heavily where there is no support, and consequently this kind of table is not very steady in its behaviour.”
Beyond a doubt, Cassels identifies the sideboard as the “chief glory” of the dining room. If it is affordable, a carved sideboard is the most desirable, but the writer firmly prefers a “perfectly plain side-board well made, than one showy and florid, having great pretensions, but proving an impostor on inspection.”
Dining room ornaments should be few in number and plain: on the mantlepiece there should be candles or a small candelabra, a clock, a spill pot (for lighting cigars), and a couple of vases. These items should be made of marble, bronze or serpentine. The sideboard should be dedicated to the serving of food and should only be used for functional items such as the tea-caddy, serving salvers, biscuit box and dessert-knife case.
Quotations are taken from:
Routledge’s Manual of Etiquette, George Routledge, 1860
How to Behave: A Pocket Manual of Etiquette and Guide to Correct Personal Habits, Samuel Wells, 1865
Cassels Family Magazine, 1875
Everybody experiences disappointment from time to time and when hopes and expectations are dashed we can be left feeling crushed or resentful. Dwelling on our feelings of disappointment can be destructive: other people are frequently implicated or made to feel partly responsible and may not know how to respond.
Some setbacks are the results of genuine bad luck and are beyond our control; some are very much our own responsibility; they are predictable and preventable.
Think about your expectations – it is often elevated expectations that lead to disappointment. When our hopes and expectations are not realistic or attainable, we are bound to experience disappointment. Are we aiming too high? Are we being too demanding and perfectionist? Are we trying to get away with something, thereby avoiding recrimination? Are we trying to achieve something that is essentially beyond our abilities or our grasp?
Or are we aiming too low and fulfilling our own unambitious predictions? Are we suppressing our expectations in order to avoid having to confront disappointment? This form of self-preservation can lead to an unchallenging, unfulfilled life and a general feeling of self-dissatisfaction.
Your behaviour may well be a factor in recurring disappointments: Are you unclear in your communication? Have you managed to convey what you expect from others? Do you understand what you expect from yourself? Are you listening to what other people are saying to you? Knowing yourself, are you adjusting your expectations to align with a realistic appraisal of your abilities?
Don’t castigate other people when you experience disappointment and try not to let your tendency to blame others lead to feelings of disenchantment and betrayal. Instead, examine your disappointments and see them as an opportunity to learn about yourself, your capabilities, your ambitions, your blind spots. Learn to accept disappointment with good grace and use the experience as a catalyst for change.
• Don’t deny you’re disappointed
Acknowledging an emotion, as long as you don’t disappear down a rabbit hole of recrimination and regret, is a good idea. People will respect your honesty and will respond to it much more positively than denial or deflection. But keep it short and snappy; no need to rehearse the minute details of everything that has gone wrong.
• Don’t lash out
Your natural tendency may be to blame everybody but yourself for your travails, and disappointment may well turn you spiteful and vindictive. This is not a good look. It is also frequently extremely unfair; you need to take a long, hard look at the situation and accept that you may well have contributed to it or be wholly responsible for it. Once you acknowledge this, you must accept accountability for your own actions and any negative impact they may have had.
• Don’t wallow in self-discrimination
You may have an impulse to go the other way and decide that shouldering the blame for absolutely everything that has gone wrong will redeem your image in the eyes of the world. This is a simple miscalculation. There is only so much self-flagellation that onlookers can take, and they may ultimately feel resentful of the fact that your abject self-criticism is forcing them into a position where they must step in and bolster your self-confidence.
• Don’t drag other people down
It is important, especially if you’re in a leadership role, to resist whining and self-pity. If you suffer a disappointment that has had an impact on your team, employees, or allies your job is to boist everyone else’s morale, not to spread a miasma of doom and gloom. Practise adopting a bland and inscrutable poker face, make a brief statement acknowledging your disappointment and move briskly on.
• Don’t prolong the drama
We’ve all suffered serious setbacks, endured searing criticism, stayed awake at night enumerating our regrets and thinking about what might have been. But dwelling on these negative emotions will leave you stuck in a rut and, instead of minimising the disappointment, will ensure that it looms large. Put it all behind you, learn from what happened to you and keep moving forward.
• Don’t dig in and keep repeating your mistakes
Ultimately you will be judged on your ability to rise, positively and stoically, above disappointment. If you fail to do so, you will continue to make the same errors of judgment and will be seen as someone who is stuck in a rut of failure and negativity.
