A workplace incivility roadmap: Identifying theoretical speedbumps and alternative routes for future research.

Abstract

Andersson and Pearson's (1999) seminal article on workplace incivility has paved the way for nearly two decades of research focusing on rude and discourteous behavior at work. We now have a better understanding of the dynamics associated with uncivil workplace interactions including the characteristics of those who instigate and are targeted with workplace incivility, the negative consequences of incivility, the mechanisms that link incivility and negative outcomes, and the boundary conditions that affect these relationships. The present article provides a "roadmap" for workplace incivility researchers by identifying five assumptions that we propose are acting as "speedbumps" in current workplace incivility research by limiting advancements about what workplace incivility is and how it functions. We then introduce five "alternative routes" for future workplace incivility research based on these identifications. Our goal is to guide and accelerate research toward a more nuanced understanding of workplace incivility as behavior that occurs within an organizational system. (PsycINFO Database Record

Political identity dissimilarity, workplace incivility, and declines in well‐being: A prospective investigation

“…These findings advance previous research on workplace incivility by showing identity dissimilarity is related to uncivil interactions, demonstrating that identity‐based incivility is related to critical well‐being outcomes for employees, and identifying an important mediating mechanism linking identity‐based incivility to outcomes. As 88% of our sample reported experiencing incivility because of their political orientation, our findings also suggest that the intent behind incivility can sometimes be clear (Miner et al, ).…”

Relational costs of status: Can the relationship between supervisor incivility, perceived support, and follower outcomes be exacerbated?

“…Indeed, the negative effect of status could be mitigated in a flatter or more egalitarian social hierarchy where status is uncorrelated with these demographic characteristics (DiBenigno & Kellogg, 2014). Alternatively, the effects of incivility may be perceived as less of a norm violation or a status threat in contexts where power distance is high (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005b;Miner et al, 2017), and the result could be stronger in the Western context. Although it has been indicated that 'the existence of status hierarchies knows no borders [Western or Asian]' (Li, Chen, & Blader, 2016, p. 186), future research situated in different cultural contexts needs to be conducted to replicate and extend our findings.…”

Social Dominance Orientation and Emotion Regulation: A Parallel Multiple Mediator Model of Instigated Incivility Moderated By Workgroup Civility Climate

“…The way people assess uncivil workplace behavior may be linked to larger social forces that guide behavioral expectations (Miner et al, 2018). Cortina et al (2002) suggested a link between workplace incivility and social dominance, as represented by social dominance theory.…”

“…This study included workgroup civility climate norms as a contextual moderator of the social dominance and incivility relationship. Workgroup civility climate is considered a meso-level factor that measures the environment at the group level of analysis (Miner et al, 2018). Future studies should consider macro-level factors that measure the environment at the industry level of analysis (Miner et al, 2018).…”

“…Workgroup civility climate is considered a meso-level factor that measures the environment at the group level of analysis (Miner et al, 2018). Future studies should consider macro-level factors that measure the environment at the industry level of analysis (Miner et al, 2018). Contextual factors may help researchers identify forms of incivility that may be found only in specific contexts, for example, male versus female dominated industries (Cortina et al, 2017;Miner et a., 2017;Schilpzand et al, 2016) or hierarchy-attenuating versus hierarchy-enhancing professions (Aiello et al, 2018;Haley & Sidanius, 2015;.…”