A surprising new study by researchers at UEA has discovered that allowing staff to swear at work can actually benefit them and their employers.

Sometimes a busy, stressful and frustrating day at the office has a detrimental effect on our blood pressure - and our vocabulary.

Turning the air blue with colourful language in front of colleagues may let off some steam, but it is hardly professional or advisable, particularly when the big boss or customers are around.

Still, multi-millionaire businessman Sir Alan Sugar has become known for letting off steam at his underlings on BBC1's The Apprentice, and fiery-tempered chef Gordon Ramsay is as famed for his four-letter tirades as his prowess in the kitchen.

Former editor of The Sun Kelvin Mackenzie was famed and feared for his suffer-no-fools attitude in the newsroom.

But a surprising new study by researchers at UEA has discovered that allowing staff to swear at work can actually benefit them and their employers.

Prof Yehuda Baruch, professor of management at the UEA-based Norwich Business School (NBS) and graduate Stuart Jenkins looked at the use of expletives and swearing in the work place from a management point of view.

They discovered the relevance and even importance of using non-conventional and sometimes uncivil language at work and how it may have a positive impact.

The study found regular use of profanity to express and reinforce solidarity among staff, enabling them to express their feelings, such as frustration, and develop social relationships.

Prof Baruch said their aim was to challenge leadership styles and suggest ideas for best practice.

“Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner.

“Swearing was used as a social phenomenon to reflect solidarity and enhance group cohesiveness, or as a psychological phenomenon to release stress.

“Most of the cases were reported by employees at the lower levels of the organisational hierarchies and it was clear that executives use swearing language less frequently.

“The primary issue for management is whether or not to apply a tolerant leadership culture to the workplace and deliberately allow swearing.”

Prof Baruch added: “We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to 'think differently', and be open to intriguing ideas.”

Younger managers and professionals were more tolerant in what they accepted as ethical behaviour, suggesting that age may be a moderator for the spreading of swearing language to the workplace. Women also swore more than might traditionally be expected, especially among themselves.

The study observed workers at a mail-order warehouse in England, which employed 14 people, and six focus groups of 10 to 20 people, two in England and six in the USA.

They included full-time and part-time workers in a variety of organisations, ranging from restaurants and retail, to a bank, nursing home and hospital.

The study suggests that while a ban on swear words and reprimanding staff might represent strong leadership, it would remove the source of solidarity and in doing so could lead to decreased morale and work motivation.

The research found that swearing did not take place in front of or within close proximity to customers, but once they had gone or in staff areas.

However, Prof Baruch and Mr Jenkins stress that abusive and offensive swearing should be eliminated where it generates greater levels of stress, rather than helping to relieve it.

Prof Baruch said the use of swearing would continue to rise in the workplace and become more of an issue for leaders and managers.

“The question is, what should we do about it?

“We offer a model and some practical advice. Certainly in most scenarios, in particular in the presence of customers or senior staff, profanity must be seriously discouraged or banned,” he said.

“However, our study suggested that in many cases, taboo language serves the needs of people for developing and maintaining solidarity, and as a mechanism to cope with stress. Banning it could backfire.”

He added: “Managers need to understand how their staff feel about swearing. The challenge is to master the art of knowing when to turn a blind eye to communication that does not meet with their own standards.”