Organizations Behaving Badly: Antecedents and Consequences of Uncivil Workplace Environments

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between employees’ perceptions of five characteristics emphasized in their work organization (i.e., individualism, hostile interaction styles, competition, hierarchical governance, and email reliance) and the occurrence of incivility in that context. We also examined how perceptions of uncivil environments, in turn, related to personal experiences of workplace incivility and negative outcomes for targets. The proposed model was examined in two samples of university faculty. Study 1 tested the model with three organizational characteristics (individualism, hostile interaction styles, and competition) and three outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and physical health) in a sample of faculty from a wide range of departments at a large Southern university. The second study investigated two additional organizational characteristics (hierarchical governance and email reliance) and an additional outcome (psychological distress) in a nationwide sample of law faculty. Results demonstrated that all but one of the characteristics (email reliance) related to perceptions of an uncivil workplace environment; uncivil environment perceptions, in turn, predicted personal experiences of incivility and negative occupational and health outcomes.

Keywords:

• Education
• interpersonal relations
• stress and coping

Notes

1 For discussions on how workplace incivility differs from other forms of workplace mistreatment (e.g., workplace bullying, workplace aggression) see Hershcovis (2011) and Tepper and Henle (2011).

2 Given that the data for Study 1 came from one organization, we wanted to be sure that there was sufficient variability in the organizational antecedents to test the hypotheses. To make sure there was adequate variability in the predictors for Study 1, we conducted a series of ANOVAs to examine mean differences in the predictors by department. All of the ANOVAs were significant: for individualistic F(70, 631)=2.59, p<.001 with means ranging from 1.17–5.00; for respectful F(70, 629)=1.83, p<.001 with means ranging from 1.00–4.00; for cooperative F(70, 628)=2.16, p<.001 with means ranging from 1.00–4.67. These results suggest that there was adequate variability in the predictors by department for Study 1.

3 Although research suggests that single-item measures hold similar, and sometimes stronger, psychometric properties compared to multi-item measures of the same construct (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Fisher, Matthews, & Gibbons, 2016; Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009; Gardner, Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Nagy, 2002), we collected additional data to examine the extent to which multi-item measures overlapped with our single-item measures of the five organizational antecedents. One-hundred sixteen participants (57% female, 73% White) recruited from Amazon’s MTurk completed the single-item measures included in the present as well as published multi-item measures of the same or similar constructs. Correlational findings provided evidence that our single-item measures mapped onto the same construct space as the relevant multi-item measures. For example, the item “individualistic” (to assess individualism) was significantly positively correlated with Wagner and Moch (1986) 3-item organizational individualism–collectivism beliefs scale (e.g., “[This organization believes] it is more productive when employees do what they want to do rather than what the group wants them to do,” α=.92, r=.52, p<.001). The items “respectful” and “hostile” (to assess hostile interaction styles) were each significantly correlated with a revised 5-item version of the Perceptions of Interpersonal Treatment Scale (e.g., “yelling,” “swearing,” α=.90; Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998) and a revised 3-item version of Douglas and Martinko’s (2001) exposure to aggressive cultures scale (e.g., “verbal confrontations,” α=.92) (rs=–.30 and –.32, p<.001, for respectful and rs=.50 and .52, p<.001, for hostile, respectively). The items “competitive” and “cooperative” (to assess competition) were each significantly correlated with the Perceived Intraorganizational Competition scale (“The competition is intense,” α=.87; Mael & Ashforth, 1992) (rs=.70, p<.001 and –.19, p<.05, respectively). The items “faculty self-governance” and “open debate about governance and policy matters” (to assess hierarchical governance structure) were each significantly positively correlated with Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer’s (2003) Corporate Culture Involvement Empowerment scale (“Business planning is ongoing and involves everyone in the process to some degree,” α=.87) (rs=.56, p<.001 and .65, p<.001, respectively). Finally, the item “email reliance” (to assess reliance on email) was significantly positively correlated with a revised version of Dabbish and Kraut’s (2006) 4-item Email Work Importance scale (e.g., “Employees use email a lot for their work,” α=.85, r=.82, p<.001).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kathi N. Miner

Kathi N. Miner is an Associate Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on diversity, inclusion, and respect in organizations.

Amber L. Smittick

Amber L. Smittick is an Industrial-Organizational psychology PhD student at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on the experiences of underrepresented groups in organizations.

Yimin He

Yimin He is a doctoral student in I/O psychology at Texas A&M University. She earned her M.S. degree in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Texas A&M University and her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Peking University. Her research interests include diversity and inclusion, occupational health psychology, and personality assessments.

Paula L. Costa

Paula L. Costa is a PhD candidate in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on virtual teams, workplace mistreatment, and diversity.