SSRN Id4609380

The new post pandemic workplace: On the relationship between relational civility
and workplace social inclusion –

A Necessary Condition Analysis
Helen MacLennan, Ph.D.

Lindsey Wilson College
S. Charles Malka, Ph.D.

Sullivan University
ABSTRACT
The emerging new workplace in a post pandemic era compels organizational leaders to better manage a
workforce that is increasingly socially isolated, disconnected, and disengaged and calls for the increase of
workplace social inclusion efforts at all levels. With a large portion of the workforce continuing to work
remotely, at least part of the time, and communicating primarily through digital platforms, fostering
workplace social inclusion has become more challenging for management. At the individual level, this
disconnection is likely to erode workplace social relationships, leaving employees feeling increasingly
disconnected. We argue that a key component of a viable strategy for fostering workplace social inclusion
may lie in increasing the quality of workplace social interactions through a focus on civility. This study seeks
to explore the civility dimensions of relational decency, culture and readiness, as defined by the Workplace
Relational Civility index (WRC) and examine just how necessary they are for workplace social inclusion.
Drawing on a sample of 160 employees from various industries, and using Necessary Condition Analysis,
we find support for two out of three hypotheses. Specifically, a high level of relational decency and readiness
emerge as statistically significant conditions that are necessary for a high level of social inclusion in today’s
workplace. Relational culture emerged as an insignificant condition and thus appears to be unnecessary
for ensuring high level of social inclusion. Implications for managers and employees are proposed. Study
limitations along with direction for future research are offered.
Key Words: Civility; Necessary Condition Analysis; Relational Theory; Remote Work; Social Inclusion.
INTRODUCTION
The 2019 pandemic has been an unprecedented event that triggered numerous trends on national and
global scales. Of particular interest are the transformations taking place in the labor market and the
emergence of a new workplace. The lingering pandemic outbreak, coupled with the profound impact of the
‘great resignation,‘ have led to an extreme mismatch of workforce supply and demand and acute labor force
shortages. Reports suggest that labor shortages may increase workers’ power at the office by giving them
the ‘upper hand.’ This may well be a ‘worker’s moment’ with companies boosting pay in an effort to fill open
positions, and a shift in bargaining power in favor of workers (Cambon and Mollica, 2022). As profound as
the labor shortages and the transfer of bargaining power are, similar other forces are slowly reshaping the
new workplace. Employers are advised to account for and be sensitive to employee related ambivalence
to in-person work. The expectation for a new workplace that is more accommodating and supportive is
shared by millions of employees. Consider the roots of the ‘great resignation’ movement (Fuller & Kerr,
2022), and recent evidence suggesting that the strongest predictor of employee withdrawal behavior has
been an organizational culture that failed to promote inclusion and respect in the workplace (Friedman &
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Holtom, 2022; Peters, 2023; Sull et al., 2022). Furthermore, we should also take note of additional survey
data that suggests that many of the returning employees are no longer content with their places of work.
However, unfortunately, 42 percent of people who found a new job after quitting say that the new work
didn’t live up to their expectations (Genovese. 2022). Thus, leaders are presented with a unique opportunity
to re-shape the post pandemic workplace, making it a much happier one.
Yet, challenges abound. In a new emerging workplace, unfolding changes in work behavior drives the need
for a corresponding new reset in employee-employer relations. In light of these changes, both workers and
managers have a unique opportunity to revisit the existing social contract that has bonded both parties.
Navigating the changes may not be an easy task given the potential for conflict that is associated with the
new dynamics at work. This, of course, necessitates a cursory mention of potential ‘contention’ areas that
may affect social dynamics and relationships between employee-employer, and among employees
themselves in terms of discourse, civility, and decorum. We briefly touch on three such ‘tension’ areas. We
are fast approaching a tipping point in the new workplace where a shift in power continues to gain traction
by strengthening workers’ power. This very transition can potentially be explosive. The change in work
behavior, three years into the pandemic, coupled with a tight labor market are likely to turn the workplace
into a major source of struggle between employees and employers and poison relationships among key
actors. Premier conflict areas center around remote work, compensation transparency, and productivity
related expectations (Malka,2023). How employers approach each of these conflict areas, and how deep
their understanding is of the need for a new reset in the relationship with their employees, will determine,
to a large degree, the nature of their firms’ internal social fabric, and the future and viability of their
companies.
Employees’ desire for remote work has been a thorny issue for many companies. Several large employers,
like Amazon.com and GM, have called for employees to return to the office only to backtrack in the face of
strong employee pushback. A hybrid approach is emerging as a preferred trend by companies such as
Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, a trend that appears likely to be adopted by other employers
(Cambon and Mollica, 2023). We should note that remote work can negatively impact relations between
employees in all levels. Survey data points to an increasing rate of uncivil behavior, particularly in online
interactions. This trend appears to be exacerbated by remote work and is on the rise (Park & Martinez,
2022). Uncivil interactions, in turn, can prevent employees from establishing positive social relationships
(Wang et al, 2019). Aside from remote-work related tensions, transparency of compensation is emerging
as an additional area of contention. More employees are posting their pay levels on sites such as LinkedIn
for all to see. Furthermore, recent legislation that requires companies to publicly post pay ranges with job
posting has been adopted by several states including California, Washington, and Colorado as well as other
cities like New York. This new trend has likely emboldened employees. And, further widening the divide
between employee and employer are their conflicting perceptions concerning productivity in an era of
remote work. As we enter the fourth year since the outbreak of the pandemic, and are faced with escalating
inflation levels and a looming economic slump, many large companies, particularly in the technology sector,
are resorting to cost-cutting measures including layoffs. Organizations such as Meta Platforms, Microsoft,
Amazon.com, and Twitter are also pressing employees and managers alike for gains in productivity.
Namely, the expectation of “doing more with less.” Surveys point to a productivity paradox suggesting a
divide between employees and managers regarding how each party views productivity. For instance, a
recent Microsoft survey of 20,000 of its employees reported that close to 90% of employees believed they
are productive at work, while only 12% of their managers shared that view (Cutter, Bindley & Dill, 2022).
Addressing such conflicting views while urgent, also calls for companies to revisit the way they view their
employees in a post pandemic workplace. A reset in employer-employee relationships, perceptions, and
employment arrangement is today a new must.

And, as the waves of pandemic infections wind down, and the voices of the ‘return to the office’ are getting
louder, employers are advised to account for and be sensitive to employee related ambivalence to in-person
work. The expectation for a new workplace that is more accommodating and supportive is shared by
millions of employees. Thus, in a post pandemic era, transformational leaders are presented with a unique
opportunity to make a difference by redesigning a workplace that is more supportive and socially inclusive.
Companies must seize the moment to better manage conflict areas and reduce areas of contention. The
extant literature offers overwhelming evidence that positive social relationships in the workplace can
improve morale and reduce employee turnover (Bajaba et al., 2022; Sull et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022;
Younis et al., 2023). And as alluded to earlier, uncivil interactions can prevent employees from establishing
positive social relationships (Wang et al, 2019). Thus, one must assume that tackling employee withdrawal
behavior requires leaders to facilitate workplace social inclusion and be cognizant of the value that is
inherent in healthier and civilized social interactions. Viewing the new workplace as a noxious center of
social exchanges and reflecting on the effect social relationships have on social inclusion, our study
examines the extent to which a higher level of relational civility – measured by the WRC’s dimensions of
relational culture, decency, and readiness – is necessary for a higher level of workplace social inclusion.
For organizational leaders, making sound decisions when weighing the added value from a combined set
of relational civility variables, or perhaps when considering trade-offs amongst potential relational driven
strategies and their organization’s social fabric, requires valid data that is empirically generated and
supported. Thus, identifying a methodology that empirically establishes varying levels of a desired outcome
(e.g., social inclusion), and the corresponding levels of a particular predictor (e.g., relational civility) that
meets the desired outcome, seems worthy of exploring. Such an approach may carry promising practical
implications when, for instance, human resource decisions concerning trade-offs among relational based
dimensions-driven training strategies are considered. Aside from being parsimonious, such an approach
can help firm managers focus only on ‘configurations’ that can yield the most desired level of an outcome.
Necessary Condition Analysis (Dul et al., 2020) is a new methodology that has the potential of fulfilling that
role and may well be applicable for testing the impact of civility in the new workplace as suggested by this
paper. Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) is our preferred method of analysis as we attempt to revisit
key relational dimensions and the extent to which they are necessary for heightened social inclusion. NCA,
as a novel method, employs a different logic when approaching the relationship between an independent
variable ‘X’ and a dependent variable ‘Y.’ Consider that while correlational approaches, such as regression
models and structural equation modeling, view the relationship between X and Y in terms of cause-and-
effect, NCA assesses the degree of necessity that exists between X and Y. Rather than “X causes Y,”
NCA’s focus is on the extent to which “X is necessary for Y.” And since NCA is fundamentally a bivariate
analysis method, with only one X and Y being analyzed at a time, the method generates unique quantified
parameters that allow for the selection of only those variables that meet necessity conditions for a desired
level of an outcome. NCA may well serve as both an empirical and a practical approach for exploring the
firm’s internal social fabric configurations and resolves related social challenges in a post pandemic era.
As such, the aim of this study is to empirically establish necessity conditions within a relational context. Our
formulated necessary condition-based hypotheses are drawn from, and are anchored in extant relational
and psychology literature. We focus on three relational dimensions that have attracted considerable
attention – relational culture, relational decency, and relational readiness, as well as on workplace social
inclusion. The three relational dimensions serve as the study’s independent variables as we explore their
necessity for workplace social inclusion. Workplace social inclusion as an outcome, is the study’s
dependent variable. While these capabilities are conceptually and empirically studied by several works, as
we discuss next, most reported findings have been correlational in nature. Namely, they explored the
average effect of a single variable, or the average effect of a combination of relational variables, on different
outcomes. Yet, our review of the literature suggests that no empirical study has employed necessary

condition analysis as a research method, making our current effort a modest attempt to apply NCA to the
relational field. Aside from the methodological reasoning for testing hypotheses using a new approach, a
practical argument can also be made. The empirical findings of the common correlational studies tend to
limit the usefulness of potential practical implications for managers. Considering the complexity of a firm’s
environment, it is difficult to apply ‘averages,’ that are at the core of any regression model in an effort to
examine relationships that might improve a social climate. It would be far easier for managers to apply
empirical findings and recommendations that offer specific quantifiable ‘degrees’ for improving workplace
civility, as captured for instance in NCA’s bottleneck tables. Such a distinction is also theoretically significant
as we propose to study our research phenomenon from a different perspective and address a theoretical
question with practical implications: Are single factors (i.e., culture, readiness, and decency), studied one
at a time, necessary for a certain outcome (i.e., social inclusion), when present at the right level, or block
the outcome when this level is absent? Our study addresses this theoretical gap in addition to the practical
and methodological contributions mentioned above. Our theoretical framework draws on several relevant
relational and psychological theories. A company’s social fabric must be viewed as a differentiated internal
capability, worthy of nurturing for a competitive advantage. As such, it rests on key tenets of the resource-
based view of the firm (Barney, 1991), Baker-Miller’s (1976), relational-cultural theory, and on the positive
psychology framework ((Blustein et al., 2019).
We devote a brief section to NCA - explaining its logic, characteristics and key testing related outputs as
part of our literature review. Our study’s emerging results suggest that two out of three independent
variables – readiness and decency – are important and relevant given their effect size as determined by
the NCA’s 0.5 threshold (Dul, 2020). These variables’ effect size was above 0.01 but well below the 0.5
threshold suggesting an acceptable small level. Both decency and readiness emerged as necessary for
workplace social inclusion, meeting NCA required necessity conditions, and with p-Value that was within
the set threshold of 0.05. Relational culture appears to be less relevant for social inclusion in the workplace
given a negligent 0.000 effect size that lacked statistical significance (1.000). Thus, based on our analysis,
relational culture, as an independent variable, cannot be considered a necessary condition for a workplace
social inclusion. We conclude our paper with a brief discussion of results and their practical implications
and offer a few limitations to consider along with suggestions for future research directions.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Relevant Theories
We consider the Resource-Based View of the firm (RBV) to be applicable and well aligned with our current
empirical exploration. RBV prime focus is the manner in which the firm employs unique resources and
capabilities for obtaining and sustaining competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and
Groen, 2010). RBV provides a useful prism for understanding how internal resources such as relationships,
leadership, knowledge, and skills shape the firm strengths as determinants of market advantage. Research
generally suggests that RBV is a sufficiently nimble perspective capable of explaining various
organizational outcomes (Esper and Crook, 2014; Malka and Austin, 2022). Access to and utilization of
unique resources reinforces organizational interdependencies that necessitates among other things a
sufficient level of internal communication, social cohesiveness, and collaboration among members if they
are to succeed (Esper and Crook, 2014; Stefanovic and Stefanovic, 2009). Thus, a firm must develop its
unique and valuable capabilities, as well as possess critical social attributes that further magnify the role of
relationship and social inclusion for improved integration, collaboration, and information sharing among
members of the organization.

Our study is further guided by several macro theoretical assumptions taken from the field of psychology,
particularly positive psychology, and from relational literature. Psychology as a discipline, and primarily the
clinical psychology specialty, has historically focused on and assessed one’s problems in pathological
terms. Contrary to this traditional view, positive psychology is a perspective within the field of psychology
which views the individual in terms of strengths and assets rather than in terms of one’s weaknesses or
deficits (Seligman, 2006). Within this context, positive organizational psychology approach perceives the
employee-employer interaction, and the place work occupies in such a relationship as a basic need that is
vital for postering both individual and organizational well-being (Blustein et al., 2019). Positive psychology
contends that increasing the wellbeing of employees through kindness and positivity at the individual level
will have a positive influence on the broader group and by extension on the entire work community (Hefferon
& Boniwell, 2011).
Drawing from broader psychology literature, attachment theory centers around the need to establish and
maintain quality social connections for physical and psychological wellbeing. More recently, research on
the interconnection of work and relationships expanded on Blustein’s (2011) relational theory of working, in
an effort to conceptualize work as a socially centered enterprise. Further building on Baker-Miller’s (1976)
work, relational-cultural theory serves as a framework that conceptualizes the idea that individuals require
social connections with others, through an interactive process, in order to flourish, and that cultural practices
of categorizing individuals can influence their relationships. Baker-Miller’s framework contends that the
workplace can be a hostile environment where the qualities of nurturing and kindness can be viewed as
weaknesses. However, viewed through the lens of social interaction theory, workplace civility, courteous
and polite behaviors that are used in respectful interactions, are a foundational component of building social
connections (Andersson et al., 2000). A more recent approach was extended by the work of DiFabio and
Gori (2016). DiFabio and Gori introduced the concept of relational civility (RC) that is characterized by
respect and concern for one’s self and others. Building on RC, DiFabio and Durandoni’s (2019) have
developed their Workplace Relational Civility (WRC), a more comprehensive framework and scale that
aligns well with our study. We adopted the WRC and briefly discussed the framework’s measures under
the methods section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Changing Work Environment
Remote work existed prior to the COVID-19 in a limited form, a trend that accelerated during the pandemic
years on a grand scale. New technologies, including wider access to the internet and various digital
platforms facilitated and now support this trend that is quickly turning into a ubiquitous work behavior,
allowing millions to work from home and other remote locations (Cambon and Mollica, 2023). According to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2023), over two thirds of workers in the information sector, and
about half of all professional and business workers are teleworking in full or in part during a typical work
week. Similarly, close to half of all workers in the education sector and about 40 percent of wholesale trade
workers are teleworking some or all of the time, based on the 2022 Business Response Survey. While
these figures represent a small decrease over last year, there are still a large number of employees who
interact with others primarily through digital platforms. Earlier surveys found that 79 percent of respondents
indicated that they used email as their primary mode of communication with their supervisor (Lim and Chin,
2006). Digital platforms have provided employees with the ability to easily communicate with their
coworkers, and while they have allowed for an increase in communication levels, they seem to have had a
negative impact on the quality of workplace interactions. The increasing utilization of digital platforms for
workplace communication and socialization may also contribute to an increasing lack of civility in the

workplace (Kabat-Farr et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Suler, 2004).
Consequently, with an increase in online interactions in the workplace, the lack of civility at work by
employees has reportedly risen from 55 percent in 2011 to an alarming 76 percent in 2022 (Porath, 2022).
Facing such a worsening and worrisome trend, revisiting previous definitions of civility becomes necessary.
For instance, consider that Clark et al. has recently updated their operational definition of civility that now
reads as Choosing to authentically engage in respectful, welcoming, and inclusive ways to foster equity,
belonging, community, and connection, including instances when opposing views are expressed” (Clark et
al. 2022; 266). Reflecting on the changing work environment, the updated definition of civility is very telling.
Workplace Social Inclusion
Coleman (1994) introduced the concept of social capital and highlights the connection between the social
networks and employee relationships within an organization and the important part they play in firm
economic performance. He also posits that attributes of the organizational social structure can create and
enforce norms for collective behavior, either positive or negative. Consequently, an organization that is
focused on increasing social inclusion through workplace norms for civil behavior has the potential to
consider it a form of social capital. While much of the literature around workplace inclusion is focused
specifically on the integration and support of marginalized groups (Bird et al., 2023; Berridge & Hutchinson,
2021; Jansen et al., 2017), we agree with Enehaug et al.’s contention that building and fostering an
organizational culture that promotes feelings of social inclusion is beneficial to all employees (2022).
Coleman (1994) theorized that ” …the kinds of social structures that make possible social norms and the
sanctions that enforce them do not benefit primarily the person or persons whose efforts would be
necessary to bring them about, but benefit all those who are part of such a structure” (p. S116).
The concept of workplace social inclusion is closely related to similar constructs in the literature that are
often used interchangeably. Affiliation (Elsdon, 2003), social connectedness (Zagic et al., 2022) and
belonging (Kuurne & Vieno, 2021); that relate to an employee’s perception of inclusion in their environment
or organization. McGregor (2019) reported that workplace inclusion efforts can frequently be met with
resistance and indicated that “inclusion” refers to behaviors while “belonging” refers to the psychological
response to them. Empirical evidence indicates that social inclusion efforts can increase feelings of
belonging (Begen & Turner-Cobb, 2014). Consequently, research does show that workplace social
inclusion can influence employees to stay at their place of work. Indeed, the Achievers Workforce Institute’s
(2023) recent Engagement and Retention survey suggested that a strong sense of belonging at work is one
of the primary reasons for remaining with their current employer, followed only by work flexibility.
Zagic et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis of numerous studies showed that increasing the number of social
contacts serves as the most effective strategy for increasing the perceived quality of social connections,
followed by providing individuals with skills to manage social situations. Teaching and modeling social skills,
including revisiting the norms for civility, may be a foundational step to building a socially inclusive
workplace environment. And while there is little research on the success of specific workplace inclusion
initiatives, a recent study of employees who were asked to suggest recommendations for creating inclusive
workplaces, emphasized the responsibility of leadership in implementing zero-tolerance policies for
workplace mistreatment and model appropriate workplace interactions (Glade et al., 2020). The message
to any organizations’ leadership cannot be clearer: Organizational leaders ought to understand that social
inclusion efforts are critical to promoting behaviors that impart a sense of community in the workplace.
Workplace Civility
A great deal of research centers around the negative social and financial impacts of incivility in the
workplace, including increasing the potential for progressively aggressive behaviors (Andersson & Pearson,

1999; Cortina, 2008; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Guo et al., 2022; ); employee fear and
sadness (Porath & Pearson, 2012); reduced work effort (Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Porath & Pearson, 2012);
decreased organizational commitment (Porath & Pearson, 2012); manifestation of sexism and racism
(Cortina, 2008). Porath and Pearson’s (2012) research indicated that 96 percent of the employees surveyed
indicated that they had experienced incivility in the workplace. These consequences negatively impact both
the organizations and their employees. Left unchecked, these uncivil interactions can result in a widespread
organizational culture of incivility. While incivility is a complex and multi-faceted construct that has a number
of potential antecedents, research indicates that the response to incivility stems primarily from acts of
incivility itself. Park and Martinez’s (2022) meta-analysis found that experienced and observed incivility on
the instigation of incivility was greater than other antecedents. This confirms Andersson and Pearson’s
(1999) proposition that incivility is spawned and increased by both experienced and witnessed incivilities
within the organization. Very little research exists on the efficacy of civility interventions. Leiter et al. (2011)
found that following a 6-month Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) intervention program,
that aimed at enhancing workers’ relationships and communication, significant improvements were found
for organizational civility, but failed to yield improvements in five of the 13 total outcomes. They indicate the
potential for an insufficient measurement precision in their survey instrument. A more recent study of the
same program outcomes showed no significant differences in the social climate or work engagement
following the same six-month civility intervention program ( Sawanda et al., 2021).
Theoretical and empirical research also indicates a relationship between perceived power and incivility
(Cortina, 2008). The literature indicated that perceived status and power positively relate to incivility,
resulting in the increased likelihood that those individuals in lower status positions will become victims of
incivility and possibly discrimination at the hands of those above them. Consequently, employees may
experience more incivility from supervisors or coworkers who perceive themselves to be more powerful,
experienced or influential. Power hierarchies exist based on any number of categories, either real or
perceived, including social class, occupational status, age, experience, gender, and knowledge. The theory
of power bases suggests that the power an individual has, either real or perceived, can influence how they
treat others and how they respond in social interactions (Raven, 1992). The theory also supports the notion
that power is situational. For example, leadership strategies used in traditional workplace settings may be
less effective in online environments, disrupting traditional power and social dynamics.
Workplace Social Dynamics
The new post-pandemic workplace has seen an Increased demand for labor combined with increasing job
opportunities, which have served to make it easier for individuals to move between jobs or careers. Studies
support the fact that employees, as a whole, have become increasingly transient in their jobs (Cornerstone
People Research, 2023; Ng et al., 2007). Consequently, employees who do not expect to remain employed
long-term, are less likely to feel strong attachment to their organization and consequently, may be less likely
to invest the time necessary to establish meaningful workplace social relationships. A lack of face to face
communication, particularly when a large portion of the workforce is working from locations that are remote
from the physical office, can disrupt the social fabric and power dynamics or the organization, as well as
basic social interactions and meaningful social relationships in the workplace (Jamsen et al., 2022; Miele
& Tirabeni, 2020). As a result, many feel isolated and detached from the organization (Schade et al., 2021).
Offering users a sense of anonymity, online interactions can erode social norms and civil behavior.
The move to online work has also changed the nature of individual workplace interactions (Nyberg et al.,
2021; Varma et al., 2022). A recent study found that 28 percent of respondents reported that they are more
likely to be aggressive online than in person (Avast Foundation, 2021). Suler (2004) argued that what he

termed the online disinhibition effect – suggests that individuals online may create, either consciously or
subconsciously, their own persona that dissociates from the social norms and hierarchies of the workplace.
Suler (2004) also posits that the power and status of authority figures may have less of an effect on
employees, serving to level the hierarchical playing field. Typically, those individuals with the greatest real
or perceived power, have a greater tendency to use and justify the mistreatment of others who have less
power (MacLennan, 2015).
Expanding beyond the scope of interpersonal relationships, and developed in the feminist movement in
psychology, relational cultural theory (RCT) suggests that relationships are influenced by power differentials
at both the individual and societal levels and cannot, consequently, be isolated from the overarching social
norms (Baker-Miller, 1976). At a more macro level, those same influences can occur based on the culture
with an organization. Hallett (2023) argues that the definition of organizational culture should move away
from practices within the workplace and focus on both formal and informal social interactions. A cornerstone
of relational-cultural theory is the idea that power is a factor in all relationships. However, dominance is
often societally provided. The comprehension of emotions is complex and can be influenced by cultural
differences and social norms (Mesquita & Ellsworth, 2001). Baker-Miller (1976) discusses the idea that
individuals belonging to the dominant group may find it acceptable to treat subordinates in destructive and
derogatory manners and subordinates. may lack the freedom to openly express their reactions to
mistreatment. As a result, subordinates must rely on more subtle and indirect ways to respond, which Baker-
Miller (1976) refers to as hidden defiance (p. 10). Consequently, individuals with a high level of cultural
education and awareness will tend to treat others with kindness and respect (DiFabio & Gori, 2016). We
therefore hypothesize that,
H1 – A higher level of relational culture is necessary for a higher level of workplace

social inclusion.
Cacioppo et al. (2009) posit that loneliness is a complex set of reactions to a lack of adequate social
relationships needed to support their needs. However, simply having workplace connections or
relationships may not be enough to stem the feelings of loneliness. Hawkley et al.’s (2008) findings indicate
that loneliness may be linked more closely to the quality of social relationships rather than the quantity. In
addition, Individuals working from home or other remote locations can have limited high-quality interactions
and relationships with others, triggering feelings of loneliness and social isolation, which have been linked
to depression (Chan & Lee, 2006; Felger et al., 2016), reduced cognitive performance (Cacioppo &
Hawkley, 2009) reduced organizational commitment (Ertosun & Erdil, 2012), and social withdrawal
(Verhagen et al., 2023). In order to develop and maintain high quality workplace relationships, it is important
that interactions have a foundation of civility (DiFabio & Gori, 2016). The automatic or controlled
understanding and response to emotion is the basis of relational readiness (RR). While this construct
appears to be very similar to emotional intelligence (EI), DeFabio and Gori (2016) indicate that RR relates
to the speed at which an individual can read and understand the feelings of others. DiFabio and Gori (2016)
indicate that individuals with high RR tend to demonstrate empathy and compassion in their responses to
others. We therefore hypothesize that,
H2 – A higher level of relational readiness is necessary for a higher level of workplace

social inclusion.
Social psychologists continue to explore the connection between interpersonal relationships and the
workplace (Blustein, 2011; Blustein et al., 2016, and DiFabio & Gori, 2016). Blustein’s (2011) relational
theory of working conceptualizes working as a relational act and that the workplace should be viewed in
the context of relationships. DiFabio and Gori (2016) described the concept of relational decency (RD) as

being characterized by decency, tact and respect for others, which are the basic tenets of civility. Closely
related to civility, decency is a term related to adhering to socially accepted moral standards for behavior.
However, McNamee (2018) differentiates the two, indicating that civility refers to general courtesy,
politeness and good manners while decency relates to the underlying moral character of an individual.
Boulding (2019) points to decency as working to ensure that everyone feels that they are respected and
valued through a genuine caring for others. He adds that even during drastic workforce reductions, decency
was shown to increase trust and feelings of inclusion. Organizational leadership should be aware that while
it is often referred to as “common” decency, the standards for polite and courteous behavior can differ
across organizations and cultures. Research indicates that cultural differences are likely to occur in
judgements regarding decency and conformity to social norms for acceptable behavior (Alshaalan &
Gummerum, 2021). Certainly, changing the underlying moral character of our employees may not be
something we can aspire to, but organizational leaders can begin fostering an inclusive workplace
environment by implementing and modeling rules for acceptable behavior and interaction. In a recent study
of more than 200 organizations, the most important requirement for creating an inclusive workplace
environment for all employees was found to be ensuring that all employees are treated with respect and
that a culture of inclusiveness is rooted in civility (Gallup, 2018). We therefore hypothesize that,
H3 – A higher level of relational decency is necessary for a higher level of workplace

social inclusion.
Relational dimensions and Social Inclusion at the workplace
Relational
Decency
H3
Workplace
Relational H1
level of
Culture Social
Inclusion
H2
Relational
Readiness

Relational decency at the workplace is expressed through decency in relationships, respect for self and
others, assertiveness, ability to express convictions, and relational capacity.
Relational culture at the workplace is expressed through politeness, kindness, and courteousness.
Relational readiness at the workplace is expressed through sensibility towards others, ability to read the
emotions of others, concern for others, delicacy, empathy, compassion, and attention to reactions of others.
Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA)
Necessary conditions can be analyzed using NCA, a novel analysis technique (Dul, 2020). This
methodological approach differs from conventional correlational methods, such as regression, and
structural equation modelling. NCA does not focus on average trends of multiple predictors; instead, NCA
identifies single necessary causes. In other words, rather than explore probabilistic relationship amongst
variables, NCA allows us to study variables that are necessary for a certain outcome. In our case, we seek
to determine whether empirical dimensions of civility are necessary for ensuring social inclusion of the
organization’s members. It is important to stress that NCA does not compete with traditional analysis
techniques, but rather it complements them. NCA’s main functions are to draw scatter plots with ceiling
lines, calculate NCA parameters - ceiling zone, scope, and effect size, perform approximate permutations
(typically 10,000) to test for statistical significance, and calculate bottleneck tables. Findings concerning the
entire set of NCA functions as they relate to our data analysis appear in our results section.
A brief explanation of NCA’s functions is essential for the reader who is not familiar with NCA. A key function
is the scatter plot; rather than draw a regression line through data in a scatter plot, NCA looks for empty
spaces in the upper left-hand corner of the plot and draws a ceiling line “on top” of the data. Lines serve as
a border between the ‘empty space’ and the ‘full space’ of the data-set (Dul 2020). In our case, (see Figure
1 under results), lines indicate the degree to which firm social inclusion (y-axis) could be ensured without
the presence of specific antecedent factors (x-axis). In other words, the ceiling line marks the boundary
between the zone with and without observations. The larger the empty zone, called the ceiling zone (C),
the larger the constraint that the condition (i.e. relational behaviors) puts on the outcome (i.e. social
inclusion). Thus, the size of the ceiling zone compared with the size of the entire area that can have
observations (i.e. the scope, or S) represents the effect size of a necessary condition. The effect size is
expressed as d = C/S with d being the effect size. The range of d can be from 0 to 1 (0 ≤ d ≤ 1). Dul (2020)
suggests the following thresholds: 0 < d < 0.1 is considered a small effect, 0.1 ≤ d < 0.3 is considered a
medium effect, and 0.3 ≤ d < 0.5 is considered a large effect, and d ≥ 0.5 is considered a very large effect.
Thus, the effect size of d = 0.1 has been used as a threshold to consider an effect as theoretically and
practically meaningful (Dul, 2020). To ensure that the effect size is not the result of a random chance, NCA
requires and allows the researcher to perform approximate permutations, typically about 10,000, to test for
statistical significance (Dul, 2020). Assessing the effect size and its statistical significance thresholds
permits the researcher to conclude that there is a meaningful necessary condition; namely, when the effect
size d is larger than 0.1, and is statistically significant with a p-Value smaller than 0.05.
An additional comment relative to ceiling lines is warranted. NCA presents two recommended ceiling lines:
ceiling envelope (CE) and ceiling regression (CR). The CE technique – a ceiling envelopment with free
disposal hull (CE-FDH) - assumes that the ceiling is non-decreasing, resulting in a non-decreasing step
function (see Figure 1 under results section). CR ‘smooths’ the linear function obtained by the CE
technique, and thus CR- FDH draws a line through the CE-FDH corners (see Figure 1). According to Dul
(2020), given that the CE-FDH is more flexible and does not require many assumptions, it is the
recommended ceiling technique for dichotomous and discrete necessary conditions. CR-FDH is
recommended for continuous necessary conditions. Finally, interpreting NCA results can be facilitated by
the use of bottleneck tables, which are particularly helpful when one wants to analyze multiple necessary

conditions for the same outcome; in our case, assessing the necessary conditions of a set of civility
dimensions for higher levels of a firm’s social inclusion across industries. A bottleneck table is a tabular
representation of the ceiling line of our multiple NCA’s necessary conditions. It indicates which level of a
necessary condition is needed for a certain level of the outcome, according to the ceiling line. Table 4 (see
results section) shows a bottleneck table. The outcome levels are expressed as a percentage of the
observed range: 0 is the minimum observed value, and 100 the maximum observed value. The condition
levels are also expressed as a percentage range, thus suggesting which high levels of Y can only be
achieved with a certain level of X. Unless these minimum levels of X are achieved, the various levels of the
outcome will not occur. While NCA application has been used in various studies conducted in different
fields, such as in logistics, HRM, education, entrepreneurship, tourism, and international business
management (e.g., Malka & Austin, 2022; Richter, Schlaegel, van Bakel, and Engle, 2020; Tynan, Credé,
and Harms, 2020; Wangoo and Jeong, 2021). We are not aware of any other study that has used NCA in
the field of relational theory.
METHODS
Our sample consists of U.S. working adults invited to participate through various social media platforms
using a convenience sampling method. Participants indicated that they worked at a full-time job, either
remotely or in the office and had at least one workplace interaction within each of the last three months.
No identifying information was collected to help ensure non-biased and honesty in responses. The current
dataset being used for NCA analysis represents responses from a sample of 160 employees across
various industries. The entire universe of possible recruits was targeted via – LinkedIn and Facebook
webpages. An online opt-in invitation to take part in our study was posted to the relevant websites with an
explanation as to the purpose of the study; we ensured anonymity and expressed our interest in
aggregate data only. Members who choose to participate gained access to the survey via a designated
link to a Qualtrics-based questionnaire that we posted on LinkedIn and Facebook as the means used to
collect the data. Thus, within the context of the study’s focal unit and theoretical domain, working adults
serve as our data informants.
Table 1. Key Sample Characteristics (Percent)
Male Female Other

Gender 55.6 42.5 1.9
Wht Blk Asian
Ethnicity 68.8 8.1 15
Bachelor Masters Doctorate
Education 17.5 35.6 35
<30 30-49 >50
Age 22.5 40.7 36.9
Home Hybrid In-person
Work From 23.1 32.5 44.4
Technology Higher Ed. Government
Industry 11.3 49.4 21.3
The study’s survey instruments, a 26-item self-report questionnaire with a Likert 5-point scale –
measuring our study’s independent variables, and an 8-item self-report questionnaire with a Likert 5-point

scale – measuring the study’s dependent variable, were developed and validated, respectively, in
previous studies. The 26-item questionnaire (WRC) is comprised of statements that focus on the three
dimensions of civility (DiFabio & Gori, 2016). It is a self-report measure designed to assess relational
civility (RC) at work from an employee’s perspective, while simultaneously assessing the same from the
perspective of coworkers, providing a balanced evaluation of relational dynamics in the workplace.
Representing the study’s independent variables (X1 through X3), the WRC consists of relational
readiness at work, relational culture at work, and relational decency at work, For X1-X3, the aim was to
solicit the degree of perceived agreement from respondents, on a the five-point Likert scale, ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” (1-point) to “Strongly Agree” (5-points) with respect to each statement. See sample
items below. The average ratings for each pair of items (Me with others, and Others with me), and across
all items, establishes an overall score for each of the WRC dimensions for each participant. The internal
consistency of the WRC was calculated using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for both parts of the
measure. Part A (13-items, Me with others) relational readiness (a = 0.83); relational culture (a = 0.76);
and relational decency (a = 0.75); while for Part B (13-items, Others with me) relational readiness (a =
0.86); relational culture (a = 0.88); and relational decency (a = 0.85).
We used the workplace inclusion survey (WIS), for measuring the study’s dependent variable (Y). The
Workplace Inclusion Survey (WIS) is an eight-item instrument designed to reliably measure workplace
inclusion (Lennox et al., 2022). As with the WRC, the WIS items are scored on a five-item Likert scale. An
overall score calculated by adding the responses for a total score ranging from eight to 80. The measure
was condensed from 24 items through principal component analysis. The highest loading components
within each of the eight dimensions were used to create a shorter scale. The evidence suggests a high
internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (a = 0.91) for the overall construct that could not
be improved by removing any of the remaining eight individual items.
Survey questions relative to the independent variables focused on various aspects of each relational
dimension from two perspectives – a statement with regard to the rater’s self with others, and with regard
to the rater’s view of others with the rater. For relational culture – the respective survey questions focus on
the extent of the rater being able to respect others’ opinions and being able to express one’s values and
beliefs calmly. And vice versa, others being able to respect the rater’s opinion, and express their values
and beliefs to the rater. Sample items read - “I respected the opinion of others” and “Others respected my
opinions.” And “I was able to express my point of view without being disrespectful towards others.” And,
“Others were able to express their point of view without being disrespectful toward me.” For relational
readiness – the respective survey questions focus on the extent of the rater being able to be polite toward
others and being able to always behave mannerly towards others. And vice versa, others being able to do
the same toward the rater. Sample items read – “I was generally kind toward others,” and “I made comments
that valorized others.” And vice versa, others doing the same toward the rather.
Finally, for relational decency - respective survey questions focus on the extent to which the rater is
attentive to the needs of others, and how easily the rater recognizes the feelings of others. And vice versa,
with others being attentive to the rater’s needs and feelings. Sample items read - “I realize the effect of my
words on others,’ and “I was sensitive about the difficulties of others.” And vice versa, with others
expressing the same toward the rater.
As for our dependent variable, survey questions focused on various work environment’s aspects. For
instance, the level of trust the rater has with their organization, and the level of respect given by the
organization. Sample items for such work environment aspects include “People are valued as individuals
by this organization;” “The organization distributes recognition evenly,“ and “My opinions matter to the
organization.”

To ensure the quality of our data and reliability of our survey instrument, we pre-tested linearity
assumptions, ruled out multicollinearity among our variables (<10), and verified that the reliability values of
the survey’s scales were above Cronbach’s acceptable threshold (>.70). G*Power software (Faul et al.,
2007) established a sufficient sample size of n=160, and thus we ceased solicitation once that threshold
was met. In our current context, we seek to use NCA to study the effects of said variables from a fresh
angle, hence hoping to shed new light on the necessity conditions as stated in the above formulated
necessary hypotheses. Since NCA is fundamentally a bivariate analysis method, only one X and Y are
analyzed at a time. We intend on using the scatter plot approach, and given the nature of our data, we
intend on showing both NCA default lines (s) - the step line CE-FDH in case data around the ceiling is
irregular, and the line ceiling regression CR-FDH given the continuous nature of our data. The plots are
expected to show no cases in the empty cell at the top left corner of each plot, thus validating our assertion
of necessary conditions as hypothesized. We set the effect size (d) threshold at a level that is less than or
equal to 0.5. Namely, small to medium effect size (Dul, 2020). In addition, we set a statistical significance
p-Value at less than or equal to 0.05, for the effect size with 10,000 permutations; this allows us to gain
accurate p-Value estimates as recommended (Dul, 2020). Finally, we intend on calculating bottleneck
and presenting results in a bottleneck table.
RESULTS
Figure 1 depicts plots of our three (3) independent variables, forming the study’s three conditions relative
to civility in the workplace. A visual inspection of two of these scatter plots – Decency and Readiness -
points to the existence of an empty space in the upper left corner above the dotted red line. Our third plot
failed in meeting this requirement. Indeed, note that no empty space exists for Relational Culture. The lack
of constraint in this case also points to lack of necessity, or relevancy of Culture for inclusion at work and
office. Also noticeable is the fact that there are no cases above the CE-FDH red-dotted line, and that only
a negligent number of cases are visible above the CR-FDH yellow line. Thus, suggesting a high level of X
is necessary for a high level of Y as envisioned by NCA. Using both ceiling lines with our plots supports the
robustness of our analysis since it allows for the comparison of results. However, given space constraints
here, and given the continuous nature of our data, we only present CR-FDH results as depicted in Table 2,
the NCA quantified parameters.
Figure 1. Plots
Decency Readiness

Culture
Results in Table 2 represent quantified parameters of our three X-variables relative to Y – workplace social
inclusion.
Table 2. NCA Quantified Parameters
Relational Relational Relational

Decency Readiness Culture
cr_fdh cr_fdh cr_fdh
Ceiling zone 1.516 0.732 0.000
Effect size 0.142 0.101 0.000
c-accuracy 98.70% 98.70% 100%
Fit 73.00% 66.00% 0%
Slope 2.543 1.865
Intercept -0.639 -1.081
Abs. ineff. 7.654 5.755
Rel. ineff. 71.822 79.727
Condition ineff. 71.822 66.253
Outcome ineff. 0.000 39.926
For parsimonious reasons we did not include scope and min/max values of our variables. Interpretation of
key parameters requires an understanding of what they represent: C-accuracy refers to the extent to which
cases are on or below the ceiling line expressed as a percentage of all cases. The Fit score is the effect

size of a selected ceiling line divided by the effect size of the CE-FDH ceiling line. By definition, for CE-
FDH, the Fit is 100%. Slope and Intercept are only relevant for CR-FDH given that it is a straight regression
ceiling line. The necessity inefficiency parameters indicate: (1) the area of the scope where X does not
constrain Y (Condition inefficiency); (2) the area of the scope where Y is not constrained by X (Outcome
inefficiency); (3) the total unconstrained area (absolute inefficiency); (4) and this area as a percentage of
the scope (Relative inefficiency). For the purpose and scope of this paper we only discuss the effect size
results as they are the core parameter of the NCA method. Effect size values represent the substantive
significance of the necessity effect of X and Y. In our case, as depicted in Table 2, with the exception of
Relational Culture, the values of our other two (2) effect sizes are above 0.01 but far below the threshold
value of < 0.5. Thus, these results are perceived as small sizes and are deemed meaningful (Dul, 2020).
Table 3 presents the statistical significance test – p-Value for the variables’ effect size, in addition to other
data values.
Table 3. Key NCA Parameters and p -Value Test
Relational Relational Relational

Decency Readiness Culture
Ceiling Zone (c) 1.516 0.732 0.000
Scope (s) 10.656 7.219 11.00
Effect size (d) 0.142 0.101 0.000
C-accuracy 98.70% 98.700% 100%
p -Value 0.002 0.011 1.000
Consider that we set a threshold of < 0.05 for the p-Value. The p-Value test, with 10,000 permutations,
suggests that while the p-Value of the effect sizes of Relational Decency and Readiness is below the set
threshold of p = 0.05, and thus considered statistically significant, the corresponding p-Value of the effect
size of Culture is above the set threshold of p = 0.05. At 1.000, its effect size is insignificant. In NCA terms,
whereas the observed effect sizes for decency and readiness are likely not caused by random chance of
unrelated variables, the observed effect sizes for culture could be due to random chance of unrelated
variables.
Table 4 captures the essence of our findings in a summary table that allows for the formulation of a
conclusion as we discuss next. Overall, our results suggest that with the exception of Relational Culture’s
related hypothesis, our other two hypotheses - concerning Decency and Readiness - are theoretically
supported; the effect size of each of these two hypotheses is less than 0.5 threshold, but larger than 0.01.
Furthermore, the p-Value of Decency and Readiness is less than 0.05. And since NCA requires that all
three (3) criteria must be met for supporting a hypothesis, only Relational Decency and Readiness could
be considered as necessary conditions. Their substantive significance (d < 0.5) and their statistical
significance (p < 0.05) are strong enough to not falsify their necessary condition hypotheses, respectively.
Hypothesis H2, formulated in kind is A higher level of relational Readiness (X2) is necessary for a higher
level of workplace social inclusion (Y), and hypothesis H3, formulated in kind, is A higher level of
Relational Decency is necessary for a higher level of workplace social inclusion.

Table 4. Summary of
findings
d< p<
Theoretical Support?
0.5? 0.05?
Relational
Decency Yes Yes Yes
Relational
Readiness Yes Yes Yes
Relational
Culture NO NO NO
The bottleneck table, see Table 5 next, depicts what level of X is required for a given level of Y, and thus
allows for hypothesis formulation in degree. Table 5 provides practical insight concerning the required level
of the necessary conditions for a certain level of Y. The values for the variables in Table 5 are expressed
in percentages. The outcome level of a desired social inclusion must be above a particular level for impact
to ‘kick in.’ A higher level represents a high necessity point for overcoming a level of ‘no need’ (NN).
Table 5. Bottleneck -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y 1 2 3
0 0.3 NN NN
10 3.1 NN NN
20 5.9 NN NN
30 8.6 NN NN
40 11.4 NN 0.0
50 14.2 NN 5.7
60 17.0 NN 11.3
70 19.8 NN 16.9
80 22.6 NN 22.5
90 25.4 NN 28.1
100 28.2 NN 33.7
(percentage.range)
Y - Social Inclusion
1 - Relational Decency
2 - Relational Culture
3 - Relational Readiness

Results in Table 5 suggest that for any level of Social Inclusion (i.e., 0.00%-100%), Relational Culture is
simply not necessary, thus emerging as an irrelevant factor. Contrary to Culture, Relational Decency is
needed at all levels from a low level ‘at ground zero’ where it stands at 0.3 percent, to 25.4% at 100% level
of desired Social Inclusion. Demonstrating decency is necessary at all levels for social inclusion. Relational
Readiness is also necessary at various levels that are equal to or greater than 50%. Thus, two out of three
conditions must exist in varying levels that grow with an increase in social inclusion levels. This finding is
certainly well aligned with the results in previous tables regarding Decency and Readiness, but it also
highlights the importance of both conditions for achieving and maintaining a high degree of social inclusion
at the workplace, regardless of industry or place of work.
DISCUSSION
This study makes a unique contribution to the social science research. We utilized necessary condition
analysis to examine the individual components of workplace relational civility in a sample (n=160) of adults
working in the United States. Our findings indicate the necessity of a higher level of relational decency
(p=.002) and relational readiness (p=.011) for a higher level of workplace social inclusion. These findings
are certainly well aligned with the current research on the positive relationship between civility and inclusion
(Cortina, 2018; Bergman, 2019) and highlight the importance of both conditions for achieving and
maintaining a high degree of social inclusion at the workplace, regardless of industry or place of work.
However, the analysis failed to show support for the hypothesis that a higher level of relational culture
(p=1.00) is necessary for a higher level of workplace social inclusion. This is in contrast to suggestions that
relational culture is a foundation for equality and inclusion (Baker-Miller, 1976; Jordan, 2017; Walker &
Rosen, 2004). Future research is needed to examine these relationships more closely.
A reason for the lack of alignment with current research may lie in the measure used. The components of
the WRC construct are all closely associated. Difabio and Gori’s (2016) analysis indicated that relational
decency, readiness and culture were significantly correlated with conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy,
altruism. However, they found that while relational decency and relational readiness were significantly
correlated with prosocial organizational behavior and prosocial individual behavior, relational culture was
not. We cannot exclude the possibility that there may exist some construct overlap among these factors or
that the WRC instrument failed to serve as an adequate measure.
These results have practical implication for leaders who are faced with managing a post-pandemic
workforce that has presented some serious organization-level challenges. Workers who are in demand to
fill new and existing jobs, are leaving their current jobs in unprecedented numbers, making it necessary to
consider new ways to attract and retain them. This research points to the importance of individual-level
civility as a foundation for fostering an organizational culture of inclusion, employee job satisfaction and
retention (Bergman, 2019; Sull et al., 2022). However, our findings suggest that a focus on increasing
individual-level social competencies may be a more appropriate approach. Leaders should be aware that
efforts to affect organizational culture change will require an understanding of the needs of those within it.
Employee discontent may not be outwardly evident and existing employees may be reluctant or unable to
share their feelings about the current work environment. Consequently, to be successful, cultural change
efforts should begin by connecting with those who work within the organization, but the new way of working
has made that a bit more difficult. Many organizations have provided more virtual work opportunities to
reach a greater number of potential job candidates for open positions. Virtual work has also served to
provide employees with increasing job mobility. However, connecting with remote employees can prove
difficult. In addition, there is empirical evidence that employees who expect to have job mobility are likely
to be less socially included in their workplaces (Pearce & Randel, 2004). Consequently, organizational

leaders may need to focus on increasing workplace social inclusion as a way to reduce employee attrition
and increase organizational commitment. Yet, merely increasing the frequency of connections is not
enough. While technology has made it possible for employees to be continually available to their
organizations, both remote and traditional employees may struggle when there are not clear boundaries
between work and non-work environments and may detach from work in an effort to preserve energy
(Becker et al., 2022). Employees who are physically disconnected from their workplace can also distance
themselves psychologically from their coworkers and the organization itself (Petitta & Ghezzi, 2023).
Poswolsky (2022) reports employee disconnection as a primary driver of voluntary turnover.
The inherent practical implications provide leaders with the opportunity for zooming in on critical factors
and on their degree of necessity for the improvement and enhancement of conditions vital to worker
inclusion. In our sample of professional workers, capitalizing on behaviors that reinforce and promote
decency and readiness may appear sufficient for social inclusion, yet they ought to be complemented by
further nurturing, training, and crafting of policies that safeguard inclusion. Both decency and readiness
related behaviors emerge as priorities for in-house training and coaching. Both appear to constitute two
competitive priorities that managers across industries cannot and should not ignore.
This research is not without limitations. The study was limited to self-report measures, which are subject to
recall and response bias. In addition, the sample size (n=160), while robust, cannot be reliably used to
make inferences about the greater population. Certainly, recruiting a sample size sufficient to address
generalizability to the U.S. workforce would be challenging, but future research might include replicating
this study targeting culturally distinct groups or exploring the efficacy of civility intervention strategies on
workplace inclusion in order to advance the field more generally. Additional necessary condition analysis
research employing alternative civility and inclusion measurements could be useful to further explore these
relationships.
REFERENCES
Abid, G., Zahra, I., & Ahmed, Al. (2016). Promoting thriving at work and waning turnover
intention: A relational perspective. Future Business Journal, 2(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fbj.2016.08.001
Achievers Workforce Institute (2023). The future is flexible. Engagement and Retention Report.
https://www.achievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Achievers-Workforce-Institute_2023-Engagement-and-
Retention_Flexible-Future.pdf
Alshaalan H, Gummerum M. Conformity on moral, social conventional and decency issues in the United Kingdom and
Kuwait. Int J Psychol. 2022 Apr;57(2):261-270. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12808. Epub 2021 Sep 23. PMID: 34558062.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (2000 ). Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace. The
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
Avast Foundation. (2021, November 18). American Millennials Most Likely to Engage in Trolling Behavior Finds Avast
Foundation. American Millennials Most Likely to Engage in Trolling Behavior Finds Avast Foundation. Retrieved
May 4, 2023, from https://press.avast.com/american-millennials-most-likely-to-engage-in-trolling-behavior-finds-
avast-foundation
Bajaba, S., Azim, M. T., & Uddin, M. A. (2022). Social support and employee turnover intention:
The mediating role of work-family conflict. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24(1), p.48-65.
Baker-Miller, J. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.

Becker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Tuskey, S. E., & Conroy, S. A. (2022). Surviving remotely: How job control and loneliness
during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well-being. Human Resource
Management, 61(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22102
Begen F., Turner-Cobb J. (2014). Benefits of belonging: experimental manipulation of social inclusion to enhance
psychological and physiological health parameters. Psychol Health, 30(5), 568-82. doi:
10.1080/08870446.2014.991734. PMID: 25420618.
Bergman, M. (2019). Civility, anti-racism, and inclusion. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 412-418.
doi:10.1017/iop.2019.80
Bird, A., Zavaletta, V., Carroll, E. F., McGinnis, H., Newsome, J., Gichoya, J., & Oakden, R. L. (2023). Fostering an
inclusive workplace for LGBTQIA+ people in radiology and radiation oncology. Journal of Medical Imaging &
Radiation Oncology, 67(2), 193–199. https://doi-org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13498
Berridge, S., & Hutchinson, N. (2021). Staff experience of the implementation of intensive interaction within their places
of work with people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 34(1), 1–15. https://doi-org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jar.12783
Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004
Blustein, D. L., Kenny, M. E., Di Fabio, A., & Guichard, J. (2019). Expanding the impact of the psychology of working:
Engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 3–
28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718774002
Blustein, D. L., Olle, C., Connors-Kellgren, A., & Diamonti, A. J. (2016). Decent Work: A Psychological Perspective.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00407
Boulding, B. (2019, July 16). For leaders, decency is just as important as intelligence. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2019/07/for-leaders-decency-is-just-as-important-as-intelligence
Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a
large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977–991.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016076
Cacioppo J.T., Hawkley L.C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 13(10):447-54. doi:
10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Aug 31. PMID: 19726219; PMCID: PMC2752489.
Cambon, S. C. and Mollica, A. (2023, July6). Remote work persists, not just for white-collar jobs. The WSJ. A2
Cambon, S. C. and Mollica, A. (2022, January 22-23). The worker’s moment. The WSJ. p.p. B1, B6.
Chan Y. K., Lee R. P. L. (2006). Network size, social support and happiness in later life: A comparative study of Beijing
and Hong Kong. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-1915-1
Clark, C. M., Gorton, K. L., & Bentley, A. L. (2022). Civility: A concept analysis revisited. Nursing Outlook, 70(2), 259–
270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2021.11.001
Coleman, J.S. (1994). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Cornerstone People Research. 2023 Talent Mobility Study. Lighthouse Research & Advisory.
https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/resources/article/2023-talent-mobility-download/
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen Injustice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations. The Academy of
Management Review, 33(1), 55–75.
Cutter, C., Bindley, K., and Dill, K. (2022, October 22-23). The new workplace wars. The WSJ, pp. B1; B6.
Di Fabio, A., & Duradoni, M. (2019). Fighting Incivility in the Workplace for Women and for All Workers: The
Challenge of Primary Prevention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01805
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Assessing Workplace Relational Civility (WRC) with a New Multidimensional “Mirror”
Measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00890
Dul, J., Van Der Laan, E., & Kuik, R. (2020). A Statistical Significance Test for Necessary Condition Analysis.
Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118795272
Dul, J. (2020). Conducting necessary condition analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

Elsdon, R. (2003). Affiliation in the workplace: Value creation in the new organization. Praeger Publishers.
Enehaug, H., Spjelkavik, Ø., Falkum, E., & Frøyland, K. (2022). Workplace inclusion competence and employer
engagement. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 12(1), 71–93.
Ertosun, O., & Erdil, O. (2012). The Effects of Loneliness on Employees’ Commitment and Intention to Leave | Elsevier
Enhanced Reader. SciVerse Science Direct, 41, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.057
Esper, T. L., & Crook, T. R. (2014). Supply chain resources: Advancing theoretical foundations and constructs. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12054
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for
the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Felger J. C., Li Z., Haroon E., Woolwine B. J., Jung M. Y., Hu X., Miller A. H. (2016). Inflammation is associated with
decreased functional connectivity within corticostriatal reward circuitry in depression. Molecular Psychiatry, 21(10),
1358–1365. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.168
Friedman, R. & Holtom, B. (2022). The effects of network groups on minority employee turnover. Human Resouce
Management, 41(4), 405-421.
Fuller, J. & Kerr, W. (2022, March 23). The Great Resignation didn’t start with the pandemic. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2022/03/the-great-resignation-didnt-start-with-the-pandemic
Gallup (2018). Three requirements of a diverse and inclusive culture and why they matter for your organization.
https://hr.uci.edu/partnership/survey/pdf/07-Diversity-Inclusion-Index.pdf
Genovese, D. (2022, August 9). The great resignation turns to the great regret as worker needs are not being met, expert
says. pp. 1-8. Retrieved from http://www. foxbusiness.com/ lifestyle/great-resignation-gret-reg.
Glade, R., Koch, L. C., Zaandam, A., Simon, L. S., Manno, C. M., Rumril Jr., P. D., & Rosen, C. C. (2020).
Recommendations from employees with disabilities for creating inclusive workplaces: Results from a grounded
theory investigation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53(1), 77–88. https://doi-
org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/10.3233/JVR-201087
Hallett, T. (2023). Symbolic Power and Organizational Culture. Sociological Theory, 21(2), 128–149.
Hawkley L., Hughes M., Waite L., et al. (2008). From social structure factors to perceptions of relationship quality and
loneliness: The Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences.
2008;63B:S375–S384.
Hefferson, K. & Boniwell, I. (2011). Positive psychology: Theory, research and implications. Open University Press,
McGraw-Hill Education.
Jämsen, R., Sivunen, A. & Blomqvist, K. (2022). Employees’ perceptions of relational communication in full-time remote
work in the public sector. Computers in Human Behavior, 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240.
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., & van der Zee, K. I. (2017). Being different at work: How gender dissimilarity relates to social
inclusion and absenteeism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 879–893. https://doi-
org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1368430215625783
Jordan, J.V. (2017), Relational–Cultural theory: The power of connection to transform our lives. The Journal of
Humanistic Counseling, 56: 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12055
Kabat-Farr, D., Settles, I. H., & Cortina, L. M. (2020). Selective incivility: An insidious form of discrimination in
organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(3), 253–260.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2019-0239
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J. C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its
critiques. Journal of management, 36(1), 349-372.
Kuurne, K., & Vieno, A. (2022). Developing the concept of belonging work for social research. Sociology, 56(2), 280–
296. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385211037867
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online
disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014
Leiter, M., Laschinger, H., Day, A., & Oore, D. (2011, July 11). The impact of civility interventions on employee social
behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0024442
Lennox, R., Herlihy, P., Sharar, D., & Robery, M. (2022). Construction and validation of a short

inclusion scale. The Journal of Total Rewards, 22-43
Lim, V. K. G., & Chin, J. (2006). Cyber Incivility at the Workplace: What has Supervisor’s Sex got to do with It? PACIS
2006 Proceedings, Kuala Lumpur, 6 July 2006, 80.
MacLennan, H. (2015). Incivility by degree: The influence of educational attainment on workplace
civility. Journal of Conflict Management, 3(1), 35-51.
Malka, S. C. (2023). Preface. In Amplifying management research for the common good: Lessons for curious individuals
and organizations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. In Press.
Malka, C. S., & Austin, L. C. (2022). Just how necessary are a firm’s logistics capabilities for its supply chain visibility?
A necessary condition analysis. Journal of Strategic and International Studies, 16(4), 18–6.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
McGregor, J. (December 30, 2019). First there was “diversity.” Then inclusion: Now HR wants everyone to feel like they
belong. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/30/first-there-was-diversity-then-
inclusion-now-hr-wants-everyone-feel-like-they-belong/
McNamee, G. (2018). Civility vs. decency. VQR. https://www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2018/10/civility-vs-decency
Mesquita,B.,& Ellsworth,P. (2001).The role of culture in appraisal. In K.R.Scherer, & A.Schorr (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp.233–248). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Miele, F, Tirabeni, L. Digital technologies and power dynamics in the organization: A conceptual review of remote
working and wearable technologies at work. Sociology Compass. 2020; 14:e12795.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12795
Ng, T., Sorenson, K., Eby, L. & Feldman, D. (2007). Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical integration and
extension. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 363-386.
Nyberg, A., Shaw, J., & Zhu, J. (2021). The people still make the (remote work) place: Lessons from
a pandemic. Journal of Management, 47(8), 1967-1976. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211023563
Park, L. S., & Martinez, L. R. (2022). An “I” for an “I”: A systematic review and meta-analysis of instigated and
reciprocal incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000293
Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee
job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.232
Peters, S. (2023). Examining the relationship of social inclusion on job satisfaction and turnover intentions of US post-
9/11 veterans, doctoral dissertation, Walden University.
Petitta, L., & Ghezzi, V. (2023). Remote, disconnected, or detached? Examining the effects of psychological
disconnectedness and cynicism on employee performance, wellbeing, and work–family interface. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(13), 6318.. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20136318
Porath, C. (2022, November 9). Frontline Work When Everyone Is Angry. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2022/11/frontline-work-when-everyone-is-angry
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Workplace Incivility and the Impact of
Hierarchical Status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E326–E357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2012.01020.x
Poswolsky, A. (2022, January 21). How leaders can build connection a disconnected workplace. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-leaders-can-build-connection-in-a-disconnected-workplace.
Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of
Social Behavior & Personality, 7(2), 217–244.
Richter, N. F., Schlaegel, C., van Bakel, M., & Engle, R. L. (2020). The expanded model of cultural intelligence and its
explanatory power in the context of expatriation intention. European Journal of International Management, 14(2),
381-419.
Sakurai, K. and Jex, S.M (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work
behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. J. of Occupational Health Psychology 17(2), 150-161.
Sawada, U., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., Miyamoto, Y., Speigel, L., & Leiter, M. P. (2021). The effects of the civility,
respect, and engagement in the workplace (CREW) program on social climate and work engagement in a psychiatric

ward in Japan: A pilot study. Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 11(2), 320–330.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep11020031
Schade, H. M., Digutsch, J., Kleinsorge, T., & Fan, Y. (2021). Having to work from home: Basic needs, well-being, and
motivation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5149. MDPI AG.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105149
Seligman, M. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Stefanovic, N., & D. Stefanovic. (2009). Supply chain business intelligence: Technologies, issues and trends. In Artificial
Intelligence: An International Perspective, 217–245. Springer. https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-3-
642-03226-4_12
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3).
Sull, D., Sull, C. & Zweig, B. (2022 January 11). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Management
Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/
Sun, Q., Wojcieszak, M., & Davidson, S. (2021). Over-time trends in incivility on social media: Evidence from political,
non-political, and mixed sub-reddits over eleven years. Frontiers in Political Science, 3.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.741605
Tynan, M. C., Credé, M., and Harms, P. D. (2020). Are individual characteristics and behaviors necessary but-not-
sufficient conditions for academic success?: A demonstration of Dul's (2016) necessary condition analysis. Learning
and Individual Differences 77, 1-11.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023, March 22). U.S. Business Response Summary (USDL-23-0539). Retrieved May 4,
2023, from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/brs1.nr0.htm
Varma, A., Jaiswal, A., Pereira, V. & Kumar, Y. (2022) Leader-member exchange in the age of remote work. Human
Resource Development International, 25:2, 219-230, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2022.2047873
Verhagen, M., Derks, M., Roelofs, K., & Maciejewski, D. (2023). Behavioral inhibition, negative parenting, and social
withdrawal: Longitudinal associations with loneliness during early, middle, and late adolescence. Child
Development, 94(2), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13874
Walker, M., & Rosen, W. B. (Eds.). (2004). How Connections Heal: Stories from Relational-Cultural Therapy. The
Guilford Press.
Wang H., Yan M., Wu G., Li J., Wang X. (2019). Hostile retaliation or identity motivation? The mechanisms of how
newcomers’ role organizational socialization affects their workplace ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921161
Wangoo Lee, Chul Jeong (2021). Distinctive roles of tourist eudaimonic and hedonic experiences on satisfaction and place
attachment: Combined use of SEM and necessary condition analysis. Journal of hospitality and tourism
management, 47, 58-71.
Younis, S., Ahsan, A., & Chatteur, F. M. (2023). An employee retention model using organizational network analysis for
voluntary turnover. Social network analysis and mining, 13(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01031-w
Zagic, D., Wuthrich, V. M., Rapee, R. M., & Wolters, N. (2022). Interventions to improve social connections: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 57(5), 885–906. https://doi-
org.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02191-
Zhang, H., Sun, L., & Zhang, Q. (2022). How workplace social capital affects turnover intention: The mediating role of
job satisfaction and burnout. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9587.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159587

SSRN Id4609380

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id4609380

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The new post pandemic workplace: On the relationship between relational civility

and workplace social inclusion –

Helen MacLennan, Ph.D.

S. Charles Malka, Ph.D.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

The Changing Work Environment

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Workplace Social Inclusion

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Workplace Social Dynamics

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

H1 – A higher level of relational culture is necessary for a higher level of workplace

H2 – A higher level of relational readiness is necessary for a higher level of workplace

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

H3 – A higher level of relational decency is necessary for a higher level of workplace

Relational dimensions and Social Inclusion at the workplace

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Table 1. Key Sample Characteristics (Percent)

Male Female Other

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Table 2. NCA Quantified Parameters

Relational Relational Relational

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Table 3. Key NCA Parameters and p -Value Test

Relational Relational Relational

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609380

You might also like