This collection of studies tested aspects of Cortina's theory of selective incivility as a "modern" manifestation of sexism and racism in the workplace and also tested an extension of that theory to ageism. Survey data came from employees in three organizations: a city government (N = 369), a law enforcement agency (N = 653), and the U.S. military (N = 15,497). According to analyses of simple mediation, target gender and race (but not age) affected vulnerability to uncivil treatment on the job, which in turn predicted intent to leave that job. Evidence of moderated mediation also emerged, with target gender and race interacting to predict uncivil experiences, such that women of color reported the worst treatment. The article concludes with implications for interventions to promote civility and nondiscrimination in organizations.

Incivility refers to rude, condescending, and ostracizing acts that violate workplace norms of respect, but otherwise appear mundane. Organizations sometimes dismiss these routine slights and indignities—which lack overt malice—as inconsequential. However, science has shown that incivility is a real stressor with real consequences: though the conduct is subtle, the consequences are not. We now know a great deal about how common incivility is, who gets targeted with it, under what conditions, and with what effects. The first half of this article reviews and synthesizes the last 15 years of workplace incivility research. In the second half, we look beyond that body of scholarship to pose novel questions and nudge the field in novel directions. We also point to thorny topics that call for caution, even course correction. Incivility in organizations is as important now as ever. Our goal is to motivate new science on incivility, new ways to think about it and, ultimately, new solutions.

Legal definitions of sex-based harassment have evolved over the decades; it is important that social science perspectives on this phenomenon evolve as well. This study seeks to refine our understanding of conditions in which sex-based harassment thrives, with empirical evidence from three organizations. Previous research has suggested that underrepresentation of one's gender in the employment context increases risk for sex-based harassment. This work has focused mainly on sexual-advance forms of harassment, mainly in the lives of women. Less is known about the gender harassment of women, or about any kind of harassment of men. Extending this scholarship, we analyzed survey data from women and men working in three diverse domains: academia (N = 847), the court system (N = 1,158), and the military (N = 19,960). Across all samples, the underrepresentation of women in a workgroup related to increased odds of women experiencing gender harassment, but not sexual-advance harassment. For men, the opposite pattern emerged: underrepresentation did not increase men's risk for either type of harassment, instead relating to decreased odds of harassment in some contexts. We interpret these results in light of theories of tokenism, gender stereotyping, and sex role spillover in organizations. Our findings support the recommendation that, to reduce harassment (whether it be illegal or legal, gender- or sexuality-based, targeted at women or men), organizations should strive for gender balance in every job at every level. For male-dominated contexts, this implies a need to recruit, retain, and integrate more women throughout the organizational hierarchy.

Recent decades have seen extensive social research on "modern" or "contemporary" forms of sexism and racism (e.g., Dovidio and Gaertner, 1998; Sears, 1998; Tougas et al., 1999; Swim et al., 2004). This encompasses covert biases, held even by people who value egalitarianism and avoid discriminating (intentionally) on the basis of gender or race, in a similar vein, organizational psychologists have shown increasing interest in "general incivility," or subtly rude behavior that lacks a clear intent to harm (e.g.