CHAPTER 8

Workplace Incivility as Low-

Level Violence:
Theories, Consequences,
and Future Research
Suggestions

Daryl Rose A. Dumogho

MA-EDLM
 Chapter 8

Workplace incivility is being verbally or non-verbally rude to

one’s colleagues with seemingly unclear intention.

A collection of instances of uncivil behaviors noted in literature includes

Workplace ignoring a partner’s salutations, giving a teammate the cold shoulder,

sending offensive and belittling messages via body language, mimicry, or

Incivility oral/written messages to an organizational member; making sarcastic

remarks about the supervisor; disgracing a coworker’s integrity; looking
down on a colleague; reprimanding a colleague for something he/she is not
accountable for; chiding a subordinate publicly; making groundless
denunciations and spreading rumors and malicious information about an
associate (Rau-Foster, 2004; Reio & Ghosh, 2009; Meier & Semmer, 2013).
 CHAPTER 8

Why INCIVILITY happens in workplace?

Extant research demonstrates that incivility risk occurs in all social interactions but
mainly when people evaluate their job as demanding and the odds of losing their job
is high, when there is huge power struggle and only weak social support from
colleagues, when there is a dominant masculinity culture and males try to protect the
masculine identity against female entrants into the industry, and lastly when
organizational change such as restructuring or merger is present (Lopez et al., 2009;
Doshy & Wang, 2014; Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2016; Torkelson, Holm,
Bäckström, & Schad, 2016; Miner, & Smittick, 2016).

A recent Swedish study including many of these variables found that on top of all
these antecedent or precipitating factors, people tend to behave coarsely towards each
other if they are mistreated themselves (Torkelson, Holm, Bäckström, & Schad,
2016).
 CHAPTER 8

Why INCIVILITY happens in workplace?

Applying social learning theory, Taylor and Pattie (2014) divulged that
employees following ethical leaders were less prone to treat people uncivilly, with
these two follower personality traits affecting this relationship.

According to the trait-activation theory developed by Tett and Guterman

(Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2016), the interplay between personality traits, and
the contextual cues triggering these traits at the task, interpersonal, group or
organizational levels could predict behavioral responses to diverse life episodes.
 CHAPTER 8

Issues, Controversies, Problems

First, human beings have a limited cognitive budget and they
need categorizing behaviors easily to interpret what is
revolving around them and to find meaning in their lives.

The second reason calling for a good definition relates to the

politics of interpersonal behavior at the workplace, including
the legal aspects.
 CHAPTER 8

Theories Related to the Origination of Incivility

Theory of coercive actions by Tedeschi and Felson (1994), which

approached aggression and violence as social interactions.
Spiral theory of incivility. The spiral would start with the perception of
a negative act violating the norms for acceptable interpersonal conduct.
 CHAPTER 8

Theories Related to the Origination of Incivility

The routi ne activity theory, originally developed to explain criminal deviance

provides a practical heuristic, predicting interpersonal crime, deviance, or abuse
when motivated offenders and suitable targets meet in time and space at the
absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson 1979).
Social power theory (French & Raven, 1959), which postulates that employees
at lower social ranks in the organizational ladder or those who are members of
low-grade social clusters in the workstation may be more prone to incivility from
higher social-rank or upper-grade employees.
 CHAPTER 8
Theories Related to the Consequences of Incivility
The transactional model construes individual-environment transactions or contacts as stressful events; hence, it is called the transactional model of
stress. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1985), the way in which individuals perceive and deal with challenges and threats in the environment are
shaped by their appraisals (i.e., cognitive evaluations).

Affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), on the other hand, work events are assumed to be the causes of affective
reactions. They elicit positively or negatively charged affective responses (i.e., moods and emotions) that in turn influence health and well-
being, as well as job performance and job satisfaction (Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013).

Stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2005). It assumes that negative feelings are among
the principal antecedents to antisocial behavior at work.

According to the fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), the witnesses evaluate whether an injustice has occurred through
cognitive calculations of how fair an instance or act is by checking the cues of respect, dignity and social inclusion.
 CHAPTER 8

Bullying and Violence: It is well-established that this relatively low-level

workplace aggression has the potency to escalate into more intense
aggression forms including bullying and workplace violence (Namie,
2003).

Deontological Loss of Ethical Business: In terms of business ethics,

incivility is against the sustainability of business.

Consequences of Incivility
Financial Costs: Stress induced by incivility and bullying at the
workplace is a ubiquitous and costly problem for employees and
employers alike.

Infringement of Human Rights: Beyond the financial costs and health

consequences it incurs, incivility is a human rights issue because
employees deserve to pursue their work in a civil environment, free
from hostile workplace communication, tense behavior and related
psychosocial hazards.
 CHAPTER 8

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• To prevent incivility in the very first place, it is essential to establish a
civil culture with zero-tolerance towards incivility (Pearson & Porath,
2005).
• As a common preventive approach, HRDs might develop and implement
management-training interventions.
• Interpersonal skills training in the form of mentoring and coaching
would also be used to mold managers into civil role models in using
integrating conflict management style.
• HRDs should support the organizational leaders to talk with employees
who claim to be the targets or victims of incivility.
 CHAPTER 8

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

• Agent based modelling and simulation (ABMS) is better suited for
researching these dynamic and data-problematic organizational processes
in incivility.
• Use of randomized controlled trials, a medical experimental model, in
investigations of the effectiveness of organizational interventions. A
systematic literature review shows there is no real randomized controlled
trial in workplace mistreatment research literature, including the
incivility and bullying studies (Hodgins, MacCurtain, & Mannix-
McNamara, 2014).
 Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.
CHAPTER 8
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American
Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. doi:10.2307/2094589

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!: A call to reconcile constructs within
workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499–519. doi:10.1002/job.689

Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time
References for “nice”? Think again. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 7–18.

Rau-Foster, M. (2004). Workplace civility and staff retention. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 31(6), 702.
PMID:15686340

Torkelson, E., Holm, K., Bäckström, M., & Schad, E. (2016). Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace
incivility: The importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others. Work and Stress,
30(2), 115–131. doi:10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524 PMID:27226677