The customer steps up to the counter, waits to be acknowledged, and begins to explain the issue.

There is a measured quality to the interaction. Even where frustration is present, it remains moderated within the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, shaped by pauses, tone, and the subtle calibrations that come with being physically present.

Later that same day, the same customer places a call.

The issue is unchanged. The outcome they want is identical. But something about the interaction feels different. The tone is sharper and their patience is thinner. The phrasing is more direct, and occasionally more abrasive. The boundaries that held in the face-to-face interaction seem, somehow, less fixed.

This contrast is familiar to anyone who has spent time in a contact centre. It is often explained in simple terms. Customers are frustrated, they have waited in a queue, and they are dealing with a problem they did not want to have. All of this is true, and all of it contributes.

But it does not fully explain why the same individual might regulate their behaviour in one context and abandon that regulation in another.

It is the conditions under which the interaction takes place, rather than the person, that are different. To understand why this shift occurs, we need to look beyond the surface of the interaction and into the psychological conditions that shape it.

One of the most useful ways to understand this shift is through the concept of Deindividuation.

 

Distance, Anonymity, and the Loss of Social Restraint

Deindividuation describes a state in which an individual’s sense of self-awareness is reduced, often as a result of anonymity or distance. In these conditions, behaviour becomes less constrained by social norms and more influenced by immediate emotion. People do not necessarily become more aggressive, but they do become less regulated.

In a face-to-face interaction, there are constant reminders of the other person’s presence. Eye contact, facial expression, posture, and tone all act as feedback loops. They reinforce the fact that the interaction is taking place between two individuals, each with their own reactions and sensitivities.

On the phone, many of these cues disappear.

The adviser is still present, but becomes a voice rather than a person; a role rather than an individual. The subtle social signals that would normally regulate behaviour are either weakened or absent entirely.

In this environment, it becomes easier for frustration to be expressed without the same degree of self-monitoring because the usual constraints on behaviour are weakened.

The structure of contact centre interactions amplifies this effect.

Customers rarely call at a moment of calm. By the time the interaction begins, frustration is often already elevated. Waiting in a queue, navigating automated systems, and repeating information can further increase that emotional intensity.

At the same time, the adviser operates within tighter constraints. Scripts, processes, and compliance requirements shape how they respond, often reducing flexibility in the early stages of the interaction.

The result is an asymmetry, where the customer enters with heightened emotion and fewer social constraints, whilst the adviser enters with professional expectations, but within stricter boundaries. The call’s behaviour reflects that imbalance.

 

Why This Matters for Advisers

This places a particular demand on advisers, often described as Emotional labour.

They are required to regulate their own responses while absorbing the unfiltered emotion of others. Each interaction may be manageable in isolation. But, over time, repeated exposure to heightened emotion and reduced social regulation can have a measurable impact.

The requirement to remain composed, empathetic, and professional in the face of this behaviour adds a layer of demand that is often underestimated.

Importantly, the behaviour they encounter is not always a reflection of how customers would act in other contexts. Without that understanding, there is a risk of misattribution. Customers are seen as inherently difficult. Advisers are encouraged to develop thicker skin. The underlying dynamics remain unaddressed.

In response, organisations often focus on strengthening the adviser.

Resilience training, de-escalation techniques, and call control frameworks are introduced to help advisers manage difficult interactions more effectively. These interventions have value, and in many cases they are necessary.

However, they share a common assumption: that the primary point of intervention is the individual handling the call. What they do not address is the environment that is producing the behaviour in the first place

If the conditions of the interaction increase the likelihood of disinhibited behaviour, then focusing exclusively on the adviser is only a partial solution.

A different approach begins by recognising that behaviour is, in part, designed.

 

Designing for Better Behaviour

If behaviour is shaped by distance, anonymity, and emotional carryover, then the role of leadership is to design for it. Four shifts, in particular, can make a meaningful difference:

• Reducing anonymity helps to counteract deindividuation. When advisers introduce themselves naturally, use names, and establish a human presence early, the interaction becomes less abstract and more personal.
• Reducing emotional carryover lowers the intensity customers bring into the conversation. Acknowledging wait times or frustration does more than signal empathy. It reduces the need for the customer to escalate in order to be heard.
• Restoring human presence shifts the interaction from transactional to relational. Where advisers are able to move beyond rigid scripting and respond with a degree of authenticity, customers are more likely to regulate their own behaviour in response.
• Increasing adviser agency addresses the asymmetry in the interaction. When advisers have room to exercise judgment, rather than simply follow process, they are better able to shape the tone of the conversation as it unfolds.

These are not large-scale transformations. But they are deliberate design choices, and over time they influence both the frequency and intensity of difficult behaviour.

 

The Behaviour We Create

It is tempting to frame customer rudeness as a characteristic of the customer. In reality, it is more often a product of the interaction.

The same individual, in a different context, will behave differently because the conditions around them have changed. This does not remove accountability from the customer. But it does broaden responsibility. Because if behaviour is shaped by context, then it can also be shaped by design.

The question for leaders is not how to eliminate difficult behaviour entirely. It is how to create conditions in which better behaviour is more likely.

And in a contact centre, those conditions are not accidental. They are built by leaders – deliberately or otherwise.

 

References:

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057906

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.3.439

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). University of Nebraska Press.

 

 

About the Author:

Danny believes that happy bees make tasty honey. With a purposeful culture, strategy and support systems, high performance becomes a side effect.

He is a psychologist, author of Constellation, an accredited coach, and a psychometrician whose work lies at the intersection of leadership, culture and personality, with a focus on individual differences – especially the “dark triad” traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.

An expert in culture and leadership dynamics, Danny has been recognised among the Global Top 10 Thought Leaders on Culture and the Top 25 in Leadership and has spent nearly 30-years in contact centre, retail and fintech industries, designing cultures, leadership systems, and strategies in which energy, clarity, and collaboration multiply success.

He is the founder of Firgun, a consultancy whose Hebrew name captures his core motivation: “the genuine, sincere and pure happiness for another person’s accomplishment or experience”, whose clients include Worldpay, M&G Investment Bank, and LEGO.

More articles are available on his website: dannywareham.co.uk/articles

By Danny Wareham

Keywords: Culture, Leadership

Follow Us On

Become a Contributor Newsletter Signup