Workplace Bullying Institute

Workplace 'Incivility' Study
by Christine Pearson, Ph.D.

Survey Research Summary

Incivility at work hurts a company's bottom line, according to a new study by Christine Pearson, a management professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Kenan-Flagler Business School.

What follows is summary of the responses of 775 people who were targets of incivility at work. They answered a 240-item questionnaire about rudeness, insensitivity and disrespect inflicted by another worker ("the instigator"). These findings have not been published yet, but recently were presented to a group of business executives at UNC-CH.

In general, the incidents that are the core of the study are relatively mild in intensity, and might be ambiguous as to intent to do harm on the part of the instigator. None of the incidents involved intense physical aggression or violence. Examples of uncivil behavior included sending a nasty and demeaning note, making accusations about a lack of knowledge, undermining credibility in front of others, and being shouted at.

After the incident occurred, targets reported taking the following actions:

28% lost work time avoiding the instigator.

53% lost work time worrying about the incident or future interactions.

37% believed that their commitment to the organization declined.

22% decreased their effort at work.

10% decreased the amount of time that they spent at work.

46% contemplated changing jobs to avoid the instigator.

12% actually changed jobs to avoid the instigator.

In addition, there is a spillover effect on others in the workplace. Virtually all targets (94 percent) described their encounters to someone else. Most talked with workplace peers or family members, half spoke with workplace superiors and friends outside work, and about one-fifth of the targets described what had occurred to their subordinates.

The "targets" who responded to the survey:

Were an average age of 34.

Averaged slightly more than six years tenure in their organizations at the time of the incident.

Came from across the United States.

Worked in all types of industries and at organizations ranging in size from two to more than 100,000 employees.

Were 49.9 percent female and 50.1 percent male.

Men and women were equally represented as targets.

The "instigators," the people responsible for the incivility, were:

An average age of 41 (ages ranged from 19-72).

Averaged eight years working in the organization (range of less than one month to 40 years).

More than twice as likely to be male (70 percent male versus 30 percent female).

More than three times as likely to be of higher status than the target (60 percent as compared to about 20 percent at equal status and 20 percent lesser status than the target).

Men were seven times as likely to instigate uncivil behavior on someone of lower status than on someone of higher status.

Women were equally likely to behave uncivilly toward their superiors as toward their subordinates, but less likely to be uncivil to their peers.

Both male and female instigators showed only a slight preference for same sex targets.

The majority of the targets indicated that the instigator could be an excellent worker who had a unique, valued talent. Targets characterized instigators as generally rude to peers, not respectful of subordinates, hard to get along with, emotionally responsive to problems, temperamental and "sore losers." Three out of four respondents believed that the instigator was good at "kissing up" to superiors. Generally, the instigator was not believed to be a drug or alcohol abuser, nor did he or she have a history of physical violence at work, but one-fourth of the respondents indicated that the instigator had threatened someone at work.

Regarding initial emotional responses to the uncivil interaction, targets felt angry, upset and fearful when the interaction occurred. They believed that the instigator had belittled them or insulted them, and that their expectations had been violated by the instigator's behavior. In approximately half of the cases, the instigator had yelled or shouted and attempted to flaunt his or her status at the target.

Despite the outburst, four out of five targets considered ramifications and tempering their reactions. They acted as though nothing happened, for example, rather than spreading negative rumors about the instigator.

The organizations in which the incidents occurred were described as people were generally polite to each other; showed understanding for one another; treated each other with respect; and tended to negotiate without getting emotional.

Generally, targets reported that people in their organizations did not doubt each other's honesty, nor did they express anger openly. And in the organizations where the incivility took place, nearly all respondent targets reported that workers would be reprimanded and encounter career problems if they sexually harassed, overtly threatened or physically attacked someone.

The survey asked about how the situation eventually ended. Most targets were satisfied with the way that they had handled things and, in fact, said that they realized their own strengths as a side effect of the interaction. Respondents generally reported becoming more distant from the instigator, and more than 80 percent said they had lost respect for him or her.

Only one-fourth of the targets was satisfied with the way the organization handled things. As a result, more than a third said that their commitment to the organization declined.

The potential costs of rude, disrespectful encounters deserve leadership attention. First, leaders need to be aware that this kind of behavior occurs, and that the instigator might operate from a position of power and with cunning. Some targets said that they never reported the event to organizational leaders because they believed that it could jeopardize their careers or that their reporting would have no impact. Many respondents indicated that leaders seemed reluctant to take follow-up action. In some cases, the instigator's power seemed to carry a level of "clout" that made him or her impervious to personal criticism or shielded against corrective feedback or repercussions. For some respondents, leaders seemed to avoid "sticky" problems that reflected interpersonal incompetence.

The questionnaire data represents the culmination to a four-year, multi-method, multidisciplinary study of incivility and aggression at work. Many recommendations flow from the researchers' findings.

Actions in response to the instigator's behavior, as well as steps within the employment lifecycle, can minimize such episodes. When dealing with the instigator:

Clarify expectations regarding interpersonal interactions; establish explicit code of conduct.

Watch closely for patterns.

Document deviant incidents and reflect inappropriate behavior in evaluations

Deny the instigator further influence over people.

Mandate (rather than "recommend") counseling, if needed.

In terms of the employment lifecycle:

In recruiting and selection, check references thoroughly, especially regarding potential signals of patterns of incivility; assure the "fit" of the individual with organizational and work site culture; and consider people skills that may be required of an applicant in current or future jobs.

In orientation and training, establish expectations about interpersonal behavior; communicate expectations in orientation for all new employees; provide sensitivity training (e.g., harassment, intimidation); and provide training in listening skills, stress management, conflict resolution.

In evaluation, document behaviors that cross the line regarding incivility; provide corrective feedback to instigators despite their clout; and provide opportunities for subordinate/peer input through 360-degree feedback.

In termination/exit of an employee, look for patterns, have a third party present if terminating an instigator and don't transfer people who should be fired.

Pearson and her colleagues offer suggestions for leaders who wish to avoid allowing this type of behavior to taint their workplace.

Heed warning signals of incivility, recognizing that the instigator can be cunning.

Recognize that such behaviors can affect not only the targets, but also bystanders as well as those who hear reports from the target and the bystanders.

Don't punish the messenger who reports the incident.

Don't make excuses for powerful people.

Don't make excuses to evade a "sticky" problem.

Don't look the other way regarding a bully's actions.

Don't transfer employees who should be fired.