Q: My boss recently saw me giving a colleague a hug and afterwards took me aside to warn me that managers these days need to avoid physical contact of all types at work, for fear of prosecution. Is it so wrong to give someone the occasional touch?

A: Sadly, your boss has a point. The current climate of opinion, fuelled by some high-profile litigation, is making it difficult for people whose natural communication style includes touching and physical contact.

And it's not just in the workplace that this issue is raising its head: music teachers are worried that if they correct the way pupils hold their instruments they could be accused of assault. PE teachers have similar concerns.

Yet we know touching has multiple benefits. Hospital patients recover more quickly if they are touched and premature babies in incubators miss out on vital emotional bonds if they can't be held by their mothers. In a business context there is some evidence that perceptions of customer service are enhanced by touch. Some years ago an American study showed user ratings of a library were markedly more positive among those people who received even the slightest touch from the librarian handing out their books.

Some forms of physical contact are enshrined in social convention. The standard form for meeting and greeting in a large part of the world is the handshake, symbolic of friendship and trust. In Provence, where I spend some of my life, the normal greeting is a kiss on both cheeks between adults and in the UK in the creative industries, kissing has also become the norm.

So it seems that appropriate touching in the workplace is to be encouraged rather than deplored. The question then is what is the definition of appropriate. A colleague suggested: 'It's OK to touch people on the bony parts.' But even this common sense maxim has its faults - a slim friend claimed to be bony all over, whereas I, being rather well covered, would be entirely excluded from being touched.

But there are some obvious rules: patting bottoms is clearly a no-no. Another is patting a pregnant colleague's bump. I know several women who have felt their privacy had been invaded by male colleagues who did this.

The other major exception is those who cannot bear to be touched. I have encountered people in team workshops who have refused to take part in exercises that involved any physical contact and I have naturally respected their wishes. While this represents one end of a spectrum there are plenty of stops on the way, from people who balk at anything more than a handshake, to those for whom group hugs are a physical reality rather than a turn of phrase.

This is what makes the issue of touching so complicated - the definition of what is acceptable varies from individual to individual.

My guidance is to be alert to what the other person expects and would like. One way to determine this is to use some of the techniques developed by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) practitioners. NLP recognises three main types of preference ('modalities') in communication: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic. The way to spot the three types is to pay attention to the words they use to express themselves.

As their names suggest, visuals like to see things. They speak rapidly and tend use terms relating to vision, 'I see what you mean', and 'in my view...', for example. Auditories take on information primarily through sound, may not make eye contact when they are listening intently, speak more slowly and use aural vocabulary such as 'I hear what you're saying' or 'that sounds to me like ... '. But the kinaesthetics, and this may be your type, experience the world through touch and feeling. Their speech seems to come from the gut and is the slowest of the three. Typical vocabulary includes 'hold on', 'I haven't quite grasped what you mean' and 'I feel'. Not surprisingly, this group is the most likely to enjoy tactile experience.

And if you do think you've spotted a kindred spirit who you feel could do with a hug, you can always check.

My guess is that the hug that drew your boss's criticism was an asexual embrace between consenting adults and therefore perfectly appropriate. The fact that she made a point of drawing you aside to make this comment may provide a valuable clue about your boss's preference when it comes to physical contact in the office.

Miranda Kennett is an independent coach. If you have a problem you'd like her to tackle, email: miranda@firstclasscoach.co.uk

blog comments powered by Disqus