According to a new study, the stress of encounters with rude customers does not always stay at work.
If you’ve ever worked a service job, you’ve probably faced a customer who pushed you to the limit: rudely questioning your competence, complaining about a long wait you didn’t cause, rolling their eyes when you explain store policy. You smile anyway, because that’s what you’re trained to do.
Later, when they ask for a refill or their check, you move a little slower. You’re less attentive, you take your time. Nothing dramatic—just small gestures that feel, in the moment, like taking back a bit of control.
In a new study, Sunny Kim, a Boston University School of Hospitality Administration assistant professor, and her colleagues found that when hospitality workers cope with rude customers by quietly retaliating—a phenomenon known as “service sabotage”—the strategy can backfire. Instead of offering relief, it can trigger rumination, even disrupt sleep, as workers replay the incident over and over in their minds.
The findings appear in the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Here, Kim digs into why rude customer interactions linger, why “just don’t take it personally” may be the wrong advice, and what managers can do to better protect their teams:
How did this study come about, and what question were you trying to answer about customer incivility?
Customer interaction is central to hospitality work, and how customers treat employees directly affects employee well-being. Those encounters can shape their professional identity, job satisfaction, and even self-esteem. Rude customers are common, yet employees are expected to handle those situations as part of the job. I wanted to understand what happens after those negative interactions, especially which coping strategies employees choose and what consequences those choices have once they leave work.
What were the main findings?
We identified a chain reaction. When employees experience customer incivility, some respond with service sabotage. That behavior is linked to increased rumination, meaning they replay the incident in their minds. That rumination predicts poorer sleep quality. In other words, the way employees cope in the moment shapes how they feel later that night.
Why do employees turn to service sabotage in the first place?
There are many ways employees can cope with rude customers, but not all strategies require the same amount of effort. Some approaches, like perspective-taking, ask employees to put themselves in the customer’s shoes and try to understand what the customer might be going through. That takes emotional and cognitive energy. Service sabotage, by contrast, is easier. It requires less effort in the moment and can feel like a quick way to restore balance. Because employees are already performing emotional labor during their shifts, choosing the easiest response can be tempting.
Your study shows that service sabotage can backfire. How does that happen, and why do these incidents continue to replay in the employee’s mind after work?
After employees engage in service sabotage, they are not mentally free from the situation. Instead, they replay both the customer’s behavior and their own response. Many feel conflicted about what they did, especially because organizations emphasize professionalism and customer satisfaction. That internal conflict keeps the thoughts active even after the shift ends. Because the experience is not fully resolved, it turns into rumination. That prolonged mental processing interferes with sleep.
Your study also examined “distancing coping.” What is it and why could it make things worse?
Distancing coping means trying to ignore what happened or push it aside without fully processing it. Many people assume that is the healthiest response. But our findings suggest that when employees simply try to forget the incident, the feelings are not resolved; they are still there, just unaddressed. Because the experience has not been processed, the thoughts can resurface later. In that sense, distancing does not eliminate the stress. It only postpones it.
Many people are told, “Just don’t take it personally.” Based on your research, what’s missing from that advice?
Telling someone not to take it personally can invalidate what they are feeling. It encourages them to suppress their reaction rather than process it. Customer incivility is a real experience. Instead of asking employees to ignore it, it is more helpful to acknowledge what happened and allow space to talk through it. Processing the experience is different from simply trying to move past it.
What should organizations and managers be doing differently to support employees after uncivil customer interactions?
Organizations should not expect employees to handle these situations alone. Managers can build a culture where staff know they will be supported when customer incivility happens. That starts with listening, taking time to debrief before jumping to solutions, and clearly signaling, “I’ve got your back.” Some businesses are also educating customers by posting reminders to treat staff respectfully and, in serious cases, refusing service to repeat offenders. It requires moving beyond the idea that the customer is always right and recognizing that employees, as internal customers, deserve protection.
If you could leave service workers with one message about dealing with difficult customers, what would it be?
First, I would acknowledge how hard their work is. Customer incivility takes a real psychological toll, and it is not something they should simply ignore. At the same time, I would gently remind them that service sabotage can become a form of self-sabotage. It may feel like the easiest option in the moment, but it can create more stress later. That is why it is so important for organizations to step in and provide real support. The burden should not fall entirely on the person standing behind the counter.
Additional researchers from Jiangsu University of Technology, China; University of North Texas; Pennsylvania State University; and Nanjing Normal University, China also contributed to the work.
Source: Boston University
