Have you ever been in a meeting with a colleague who needlessly clicks their pen nonstop? Or sat next to someone at work who would not stop humming? Or heard someone chewing with their mouth open?
Chances are, one or more of these behaviors elicits a negative response for you. You likely find these and similar behaviors vigorously irritating, disproportionately more than what you would consider one of your average ordinary annoyances. We refer to these colloquially as our pet peeves.
As common as pet peeves are, they are also unique to each individual. While some pet peeves are widely shared—such as wasting others' time—others can be highly personal.
For example, if someone at work does not pick up after themselves, it might not bother you very much, but for a different colleague, that behavior could trigger one of their strongest feelings of annoyance or even anger.
Pet peeves in everyday life
In almost all facets of life, people encounter their pet peeves. Whether we are at work, at home, or out running errands, we are bound to come across some behavior that drives us crazy, makes us wince, and/or causes us to experience some strong negative emotions such frustration or exasperation.
We theorized that because organizations rely on colleagues interacting in order to achieve goals (e.g., meetings, collaborations), there must be pet peeves embedded within these workplace interactions and, consequently, there must be some resulting negative impact. With this hypothesis in mind, we set out to:
- Define what pet peeves are,
- Investigate how people process them, and
- Discover what impact they have in the workplace.
In our study, we used a qualitative approach to better understand the nature of pet peeves, how they are processed, and what their consequences are. We interviewed people about their pet peeves, asking them to discuss their thoughts and experiences.
Defining pet peeves: Three key components
What we found was that pet peeves are composed of and defined by three distinct components:
- Self-Centered Nature - Pet peeves are personal to each individual, making them different from a typical or “standard” annoyance.
- Personalized cognitive component - Pet peeves are unique to individuals because they are linked to our personal values and expectations.
- Personalized emotional component - Pet peeves are associated with not only an emotion (e.g., frustration, anger) but also an intensity of that emotion.
How we process pet peeves: The role of sensemaking
We were also able to link pet peeves to sensemaking, a process in which people reflect upon their experiences to give meaning to (i.e., to make sense of) their world.
Researchers Sandberg & Tsoukas have proposed four types of sensemaking:
Immanent sensemaking: An instinctive reaction.
Immanent sensemaking can be thought of as the regular, “default” way we operate in our daily lives.
As an example, if someone cuts into our lane unexpectedly as we are driving (which might be one of your pet peeves), immanent sensemaking would be to think That driver is an idiot! It takes little effort to come up with these thoughts.
Involved deliberate sensemaking: A quick rationalization of an event
Involved-deliberate sensemaking happens when our daily life is interrupted (like someone cutting into our lane) and needs to be immediately put back on track.
Continuing with our example, involved-deliberate sensemaking might involve thinking of or discovering valid reasons that the driver cut you off (e.g., maybe they didn’t see you, maybe they had a medical emergency).
Detached-Deliberate Sensemaking – A reflection after the event.
Detached-deliberate sensemaking occurs outside the context of the episode.
Using our example again, this type of sensemaking would be akin to processing the incident after you get home and, for instance, telling yourself that regardless of whether the driver meant to cut you off, you’re no worse off so it’s no big deal. Or perhaps that the person really is just a jerk and doesn’t deserve any more thought.
Representational Sensemaking – A deeper analysis of your own biases.
Finally, representational sensemaking attempts to provide a deeper and more holistic understanding of oneself and the situation.
Drawing again on our example, this might involve recognizing that you tend to overact when driving and/or you just prefer to have more space between vehicles when changing lanes. Thus, in this particular situation, the driver did not in fact cut you off but, rather, you might need to change your perspective about how others drive.
Lastly, our research found that pet peeves do indeed have negative consequences in the workplace. Our study participants reported a variety of damaging outcomes that have resulted from pet peeves. Among these are:
- Avoiding those colleagues who trigger our pet peeves (even when it would normally be necessary to interact with them),
- Withholding praise or recognition from others,
- Withholding a promotion from a qualified individual.
Although pet peeves are seemingly trivial in nature, our study found that they do indeed have real and very negative consequences in the workplace.
Looking ahead: The need for further research
As a newly defined concept, pet peeves are not yet fully understood. We decided to study them within the context of the workplace because that is where most people spend most of their waking hours.
However, much more remains to be discovered about pet peeves, both at and outside of work, and how they influence people’s interactions and relationships, as well as how they impact organizational functioning.
The findings presented in this article have been drawn from the following research article:
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2020). Sensemaking Reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937
