University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

(USC Thesis Other)

Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Increasing Workplace Civility in Higher Education: A Field Study
by
Patrick Cates

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Patrick Cates 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Patrick Cates certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Adrian Donato
Cathy Krop
Alexandra Wilcox, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
Workplace incivility refers to rude and disrespectful behavior that falls short of bullying and
aggression, and that may or may not be intended to cause harm. Workplace incivility is an issue
that affects a wide range of industries globally and it can have a negative impact on employees’
physical and mental health. In addition, because incivility is associated with decreased work
performance, increased absenteeism, and increased turnover, dealing with it can cost
organizations millions of dollars. This study addressed the problem of workplace incivility in
higher education. More specifically, it used the Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework
to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors underlying the perpetuation of
incivility in higher education institutions. Administrative staff in a range of American
universities were interviewed about their experiences of incivility. This data was then analyzed
and synthesized with relevant research literature to generate a set of recommendations for
increasing civility in higher education environments. These recommendations were then
integrated into a design for a new civility improvement program called POCUS (the Program for
Optimizing Civility in University Settings).

v
Dedication
To Jen and Minerva, my greatest loves. I could not have made it through this program without
your support. As you grow up in this often-cruel world, Minerva, I know you will continue to
embrace the overarching theme of this dissertation: Be kind.

vi
Acknowledgements
So many professors in the EdD OCL program have had a positive impact on me over the
last three years, but there are four professors in particular who have shepherded me through the
dissertation process and who warrant special mention. I feel so lucky and so grateful to have had
Dr. Alexandra Wilcox as my dissertation chair. Her guidance, wisdom, and support have been
truly invaluable. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Cathy Krop and Dr. Adrian Donato, the
other two members of my dissertation committee. My proposal defense with them was an
inspiring conversation, and their feedback was immensely helpful to me in clarifying the focus of
my study. Finally, I have Dr. Don Murphy to thank for being a draft-reader par excellence and
for steering us through our final class in the EdD program.
For helping me through the last three years, I am immensely grateful to my Cohort 13
classmates. That said, I could easily have succeeded without the following six people, but I was
stuck in class with them every semester: Alan Boothby-Jackson, Jennie “Screenshot” Leander,
Nate Mack, Brirb Mongeon, D. Todd “D. Todd” Philips, and Uncle Ken Schow. On a more
positive note, I am thankful to my many colleagues at USC whose experiences inspired me to
take a deep dive into organizational culture.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 4
Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 4
Global Goal ......................................................................................................................... 5
Importance of the Field Innovation..................................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 6
Stakeholder Group of Focus for the Study ......................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 9
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 10
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
The Context of Workplace Incivility Research ................................................................ 12
Outcomes of Incivility ...................................................................................................... 20
Antecedents of Incivility ................................................................................................... 26
Responding to Incivility .................................................................................................... 31
Qualitative Studies of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education .................................... 37
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis Framework ......................................................... 40

viii
Conceptual Framework: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on
Workplace Civility and Incivility ............................................................................... 58
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 63
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 63
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 64
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 64
Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan ........................................................ 65
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 70
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 73
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 74
Determining Needs and Assets ......................................................................................... 76
Findings for Knowledge Influences .................................................................................. 76
Summary of Findings for Knowledge Influences ............................................................. 92
Findings for Motivation Influences .................................................................................. 93
Summary of Findings for Motivation Influences............................................................ 115
Findings for Organizational Influences .......................................................................... 115
Summary of Findings for Organizational Influences...................................................... 148
Summary of Needs and Assets ....................................................................................... 149
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion....................................................................... 151
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 151
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 153
A Design for a Higher Education Civility Program........................................................ 172
Description of POCUS .................................................................................................... 173
Implementation Plan for POCUS.................................................................................... 175

ix
Evaluation of POCUS ..................................................................................................... 176
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 180
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 182
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 184
References ................................................................................................................................... 186
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 210
Appendix B: Communications .................................................................................................... 214
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 216
Appendix D: Data Collection Crosswalk .................................................................................... 219
Appendix E: The Workplace Incivility Scale ............................................................................. 223

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Field Mission, Field Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goal 9
Table 2: Knowledge Influences 45
Table 3: Motivation Influences 52
Table 4: Organizational Influences 58
Table 5: Participating Stakeholder Summary 75
Table 6: Assessment of Knowledge Influences as Needs or Assets 77
Table 7: Assessment of Motivation Influences as Needs or Assets 93
Table 8: Assessment of Organizational Influences as Needs, Assets, or Newly
Identified Needs
116
Table 9: Summary of Organizational Needs 153
Table 10: Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations 156
Table 11: POCUS Evaluation Focus Group Questions 175
Table 12: POCUS Implementation Timeline 177
Table A1: Knowledge Influences 211
Table A2: Motivation Influences 211
Table A3: Organizational Influences 212
Appendix D: Data Collection Crosswalk 218

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Field Mission, Field Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goal 59

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This dissertation addresses the problem of workplace incivility in higher education
institutions. Workplace incivility refers to rude and disrespectful employee behavior that falls
short of bullying and aggression, and that may or may not be intended to cause harm (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999). In a 14-year period Porath and Pearson (2013) conducted surveys with
thousands of American employees across a range of industries and observed that 98% of
respondents reported having experienced incivility while at work. Notably, experiencing
workplace incivility can negatively impact employees’ emotions. Nicholson and Griffin (2015)
found that people were 27% unhappier after work if they had been the target of uncivil behavior
by a colleague. Similarly, Porath and Pearson (2012) showed that people who had experienced
incivility were more likely to report feelings of sadness, anger, and fear. The negative emotional
impact of incivility can affect employee behavior and create significant challenges at the
organizational level, such as poor job performance (Zhang et al., 2018), high turnover (Sguera et
al., 2016), and absenteeism (Welbourne & Sariol, 2017). These organizational challenges can, in
turn, translate into major financial costs. Before instituting a program to improve civility across
the company, Cisco determined that it was spending around $12 million per year dealing with the
effects of incivility (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Given the significant detrimental effects that
incivility can have on an organization, it is an important problem to solve.
Background of the Problem
Over the past decade, a voluminous body of research has demonstrated that workplace
incivility is a problem that negatively affects employees in America (Bunk & Magley, 2013;
Cortina et al., 2013; Gallus et al., 2014; Heischman et al., 2019; Park & Haun, 2018; Welbourne
& Sariol, 2017). This body of research has also shown that workplace incivility adversely
2

impacts employees in numerous other countries, including Australia (Loh & Loi, 2018), Canada
(Geldart et al., 2018), China (Chen et al., 2013), India (Sharma & Singh, 2016), Singapore (Lim
& Lee, 2011), and Sweden (Torkelson et al., 2016). In addition, this research has indicated that
incivility occurs across a wide range of industries and work contexts, such as banking (Sliter et
al., 2012), healthcare (Sguera et al., 2016), higher education (Sakurai & Jex, 2012), hospitality
(Kim & Qu, 2019), manufacturing (Wu et al., 2014), the military (Cortina et al., 2013), and real
estate (Miner et al., 2012).
In the context of this dissertation, the specific field context that deserves further
exploration with respect to workplace incivility is higher education. Several workplace incivility
studies have been carried out in this field. For example, in their frequently referenced study of
full-time employees at a mid-size American university, Sakurai and Jex (2012) found that
experiencing workplace incivility was a significant predictor of negative emotions, which, in
turn, were associated with a reduction in work effort and an increase in deliberate efforts to harm
the interests of the university. In a groundbreaking piece of research into the perpetration of
workplace incivility via online modes of communication like email, Giumetti et al. (2012)
established that staff at an American university who experienced this kind of incivility were
more likely to experience burnout, to be absent more often, and to report an intention to leave the
organization.
Most of the research that has been carried out into the effects of workplace incivility has
been quantitative and correlational. Studies have typically assessed people’s historical reported
experiences of the phenomenon using a well-validated survey instrument such as the Workplace
Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001) and then correlated these responses with measures of other
constructs, such as absenteeism (Porath & Pearson, 2012), burnout (Han et al., 2016), depression
3

(Lim & Lee, 2011), job satisfaction (Sharma & Singh, 2016), and work performance (Sliter et
al., 2012). However, although these studies indicate that experiencing workplace incivility is
associated with the negative outcomes in question, they do not prove the existence of a causal
relationship. To address this shortcoming, some researchers have carried out laboratory
experiments to demonstrate the impact of incivility. For example, Giumetti et al. (2013) asked
undergraduate students to complete math problems. Half of the participants were shown a
supportive email from a supervisor and the other half were shown an uncivil email from a
supervisor. Those who were shown the uncivil email answered fewer questions correctly, were
less engaged in the task, experienced lower energy, and were more likely to feel negative
emotions.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of workplace incivility in higher education is important to solve for several
reasons. First, a wealth of research has shown that experiencing incivility is associated with a
range of deleterious effects on employees’ physical and mental health, such as negative emotions
(Sakurai & Jex, 2012), stress (Miner et al., 2012), anxiety (Geldart et al., 2018), depression (Lim
& Lee, 2011), and burnout (Loh & Loi, 2018). Second, the negative impact of incivility on
employees can lead to poor job performance (Zhang et al., 2018), absenteeism (Welbourne &
Sariol, 2017), and higher turnover (Sguera et al., 2016), which can collectively cost organizations
millions of dollars (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Third, employees can carry the negative impact of
incivility home with them, and it can affect the wellbeing of their families (Ferguson, 2012; Lim
et al., 2018; Park & Haun, 2018). Finally, uncivil behavior is contagious, and can spread between
customers, employees, and their colleagues (Gallus et al., 2014; Kim & Qu, 2019; Torkelson et
4

al., 2016). Consequently, if workplace incivility is not addressed, it can become an even bigger
problem.
Definition of Terms
• Workplace Civility refers to employee behavior that demonstrates politeness and respect
towards others in the workplace (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).
• Workplace Incivility refers to rude and disrespectful employee behavior that falls short of
bullying and aggression, and that may or may not be intended to cause harm (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999).
• The Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) is a seven-item questionnaire that captures how
often the respondent has experienced workplace incivility over a given time period
(Cortina et al., 2001).
Field Context and Mission
The U.S. higher education system consists of around 4,600 degree-granting institutions
that operate in a mostly decentralized fashion (American Council on Education, 2019). These
institutions can be public or private. Public institutions are overseen by state governments and
are paid for primarily by public funds. Private institutions are controlled by private individuals or
by nongovernmental agencies and are supported by non-public funds. (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2020). Degree-granting institutions can be called universities, colleges, or
institutes, and they can be classified as either two-year or four-year institutions. Two-year
institutions grant associate degrees and four-year institutions grant bachelor, masters and/or
doctorate degrees (American Council on Education, 2019). For the purposes of this study, a
higher education institution is defined as either a four-year university or as a school or
5

department within a four-year university if the university is large enough that such schools and
departments operate as essentially independent entities.
The mission of higher education is complex and varied, given the different kinds of
institutions that exist in the United States. However, broadly speaking, the mission of higher
education has three components: teaching, generating new knowledge, and impactfully engaging
with society (Papadimitriou, 2020).
Global Goal
The global goal for the field of higher education is that, by August 2022, higher
education institutions will design and implement a workplace civility program. For an innovation
of this kind to take place, higher education leadership will engage in the creation of actionable
goals that link to this overall institutional strategy, which will result in a more civil workplace
environment for all stakeholders across the organization.
Importance of the Field Innovation
It is important for an innovation in workplace civility to be implemented in the field of
higher education for two reasons. First, as discussed above, workplace incivility can have a
significant detrimental effect on the wellbeing and performance of individuals in an organization
(Geldart et al., 2018; Lim & Lee, 2011; Loh & Loi, 2018; Miner et al., 2012; Sakurai & Jex,
2012). When people are negatively affected by incivility, there is the potential for degradation
and disruption to the work in which they are engaged (Sguera et al., 2016; Welbourne & Sariol,
2017; Zhang et al., 2018). A civility innovation which decreases incivility and increases civility
would thus likely have a beneficial impact on the ability of an organization to carry out its
mission (Porath & Pearson, 2013). If a civility program is not implemented, incivility will
continue to have a detrimental effect on the ability of institutions to execute their missions
6

effectively. The second reason why implementing an innovation in workplace civility is
important for higher education institutions relates to the educational component of the
institutional mission. Staff and faculty interact with students and, in doing so, help to shape the
workforce of the future. The more staff and faculty model civility in these interactions, the more
students are likely to demonstrate civility as they develop in their careers (Taylor & Pattie,
2014). In this way, increasing civility within higher education institutions can potentially
increase civility not only in the higher education institution, but in workplaces generally.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups in higher education institutions that are most impacted by the
issue of workplace incivility are senior leadership, faculty, staff, and students. Senior leadership
teams in universities and colleges are usually headed by a dean or a president and include vice
deans, vice presidents, provosts, vice provosts, and other less senior roles that are indicated by
the prefixing of “assistant’, “associate”, and “senior associate” (American Council on Education,
2019). A leadership team is responsible for defining the vision and mission of the institution, for
executing the strategic objectives that are derived from the vision and mission, and for doing so
in a fiscally responsible manner (American Council on Education, 2019). Because the
relationships between employees have an impact on how successfully they support the institution
in achieving its objectives, leadership teams have a vested interest in minimizing incivility and
maximizing civility throughout the organization (Porath & Pearson, 2013).
Faculty are responsible for teaching students, for engaging in research, and for assisting
with the administration of institutions via membership of committees, councils, and other
advisory bodies (American Council on Education, 2019). For faculty to be effective teachers,
they need to develop positive relationships with their students (Ingraham et al., 2018). In
7

addition, they need to have positive relationships with the administration, who charge them with
executing those parts of the institution’s mission that relate to teaching and research, and with
staff, who support faculty in their work (Savage, 2017). In a civil working environment, faculty
are likely to be more effective at fulfilling their responsibilities (Porath, Gerbasi & Schorch,
2015).
The third stakeholder impacted by the civility of the workplace is administrative staff.
Staff are involved in administering all aspects of a university or college’s functioning. Areas of
staff responsibility include information technology, facilities management, financial
management, public safety, housing, transportation, student advising, and program
administration (Jung & Shin, 2015). For staff to perform their duties to the best of their abilities,
they need to develop constructive relationships with faculty, students, and senior leadership, as
well as with external stakeholders such as potential customers (i.e., aspiring students) and alumni
(Gibbs & Kharouf, 2020). Workplace incivility can have a detrimental effect on employee
performance (Sakurai & Jex, 2012). Institutions can thus maintain and improve staff
performance by maximizing workplace civility (Porath, Gerbasi & Schorch, 2015).
The final stakeholder group who are significantly impacted by the civility of the
workplace are students. Students attend classes and seminars, which are hosted by faculty, as
they complete their elected programs of study (American Council on Education, 2019). Faculty
are the university or college employees with whom students spend most time, and the
relationship between faculty and students is of central importance to student success (Ingraham
et al., 2018). Students also interact frequently with staff, particularly those who offer academic
and career advising services (Gase et al., 2017). If workplace incivility exists in an institution
and impacts the effectiveness of staff and faculty, the student experience is likely to suffer as a
8

result (Lasiter et al., 2012). In addition, students can also behave uncivilly towards staff and
faculty, and towards each other (Burke et al., 2014). Because incivility has been shown to beget
incivility, this kind of behavior can contribute to the reduction of civility within the institution
overall (Gallus et al., 2014; Kim & Qu, 2019; Torkelson et al., 2016).
Stakeholder Group of Focus for the Study
Although a complete assessment of the civility landscape in the higher education field
would involve all four stakeholder groups, for practical purposes, this study concentrated on
administrative staff. Although no studies have been conducted specifically into whether staff
experience more incivility than other groups in a higher education environment, research has
shown that other kinds of workplace mistreatment, including sexual harassment, racial
harassment, and bullying, can stem from hierarchical power relationships, such as the
relationship that exists between faculty and staff (McDonald, 2012). Consequently, it was
assumed that staff would be able to provide rich detail about civility and incivility in their
institutions, and about what changes their institutions might make to improve civility. Table 1
describes the performance goals for all stakeholders.

9

Table 1
Field Mission, Field Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Field mission
The mission of higher education is to teach, to generate new knowledge, and to engage
impactfully with society.
Field global goal
By August 2022, higher education institutions will design and implement a workplace civility
program and include it as part of their institutional strategic planning sessions.
Administrative staff goal
The mean level of workplace incivility experienced by administrative staff, as measured using
the WIS, will be significantly lower after the implementation of a civility program than
before.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this field study was to explore what higher education institutions can do
to increase workplace civility. More specifically, this study sought to design a program that
decreases workplace incivility and increases workplace civility for administrative staff at their
institutions.
The three questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, and motivation needs of administrative staff that must
be considered when designing a program that decreases workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in higher education institutions?
2. How do organizational culture and context support or hinder workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher education institutions?
10

3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources that can drive the design of a program
that increases workplace civility and decreases workplace incivility for administrative
staff at higher education institutions?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework that was adopted in this study is based upon Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis. Gap analysis is a systematic process for defining organizational goals, and
for identifying the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (referred to hereafter as
KMO influences) that can be leveraged to meet those goals. The conceptual framework is an
application of gap analysis in support of the development of a program for increasing workplace
civility. Accordingly, it details the KMO influences that are assumed to be relevant in the design
of such a program. These influences are derived from observations, from the literature on
workplace incivility and workplace civility, and from the literature on learning and motivation.
With respect to methodology, the study was qualitative and phenomenological, and it consisted
of semi-structured interviews that were used to validate the identified KMO influences.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This chapter presented the problem of
workplace incivility and demonstrated the importance of addressing it. This chapter also
described the global goal, the importance of the study, and the pertinent stakeholder groups.
Finally, it outlined the study’s purpose, and defined its conceptual and methodological
frameworks. Chapter Two presents a review of the research literature on workplace incivility and
workplace civility. Topics include the negative effects of incivility, the precursors of incivility,
and the benefits of civility. Chapter Two also describes the assumed KMO influences that were
11

explored in this study. Chapter Three describes the methodology that the study adopted with
respect to sampling participants, collecting data, and analyzing that data. Chapter Four presents
the findings and an analysis of them. Chapter Five uses the data and the literature to recommend
a program aimed at increasing civility in higher education institutions, and it presents a plan for
evaluating this program.

12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The first part of this chapter explores the research that has been carried out into
workplace incivility and workplace civility. This part of the review begins by setting the context
of workplace incivility research. It examines how workplace incivility has been defined, how it
has been distinguished from other similar phenomena, and how it has been assessed. Next, the
review describes the antecedents of incivility, the consequences of incivility, the spread of
incivility, and the ways in which people and organizations respond to incivility. The review
concludes with an exposition of how incivility and civility manifest themselves in the context of
higher education, the field on which this dissertation is focused.
The second part of this chapter is rooted in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework. Gap analysis involves identifying the KMO influences that are assumed to impact
the ability of staff to behave civilly and that can guide the design of a program for increasing
workplace civility. This part of the chapter concludes with a description of a conceptual
framework for this study that amalgamates the assumed KMO influences with constructs from
the workplace incivility domain.
The Context of Workplace Incivility Research
To understand the concept of workplace incivility fully, it is instructive to look at how
researchers have defined it and how they have distinguished it from other similar concepts in
organizational behavior. This picture of workplace incivility will then be fleshed out by
exploring how researchers have assessed it in studies.
Defining Workplace Incivility
The concept of workplace incivility was first introduced by Andersson and Pearson in a
landmark 1999 research article. They define the concept thus: “Workplace incivility is low-
13

intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous,
displaying a lack of regard for others” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Andersson and
Pearson (1999) provide several examples of behavior that constitutes workplace incivility, such
as not saying please or thank you, taking loud personal calls in a shared workspace, and leaving
trash on the floor for custodial staff to handle.
Since Andersson and Pearson (1999) first introduced workplace incivility, various
authors have provided additional examples of the phenomenon that paint a more comprehensive
and nuanced picture of it. Porath, Foulk, and Erez (2015) focus on incivility as exemplified by
overtly rude comments from colleagues, such as the response a physician gave to a nurse who
called him about a patient: “I am with my family and you are interrupting me. Find someone else
to take care of your nonsense” (p. 260). In contrast, Porath and Pearson (2013) describe
numerous examples of uncivil behavior that are more covert and insidious. They tell of the
manager who sends emails instead of listening to a presentation, the boss who thinks he is gently
teasing his subordinates but is actually hurting them, and the team leader who is quick to take the
credit for team successes but is just as quick to blame others for team failures. While the majority
of workplace incivility research has focused on face-to-face incidents, Giumetti et al. (2013)
explored the perpetration of incivility through email. The authors designed an experiment in
which they asked participants to engage in a cognitive task, and they prepared the participants for
the task by presenting them with either uncivil or supportive comments from a supervisor via
email. The comments that the authors list add another hue to the portrait of workplace incivility,
for example “I couldn’t be less confident in your ability”, “I think just about anyone else
14

would’ve been a better coworker” and “I’m not sure how I got stuck with you” (Giumetti et al.,
2013, p. 309).
Although it is instructive to consider individual examples of workplace incivility when
seeking to understand the nature of the phenomenon, it is important to bear in mind the chronic
aspect of incivility. A specific experience of uncivil behavior may appear to be trivial and not
worth highlighting. However, it is the steady accumulation of these experiences over time that
demarcates workplace incivility as a problem worth investigating (Cortina, 2008; Porath, Foulk
& Erez, 2015).
Distinguishing Workplace Incivility
Another approach to understanding the nature of workplace incivility is to situate it
within the context of other similar constructs. Because incivility involves ambiguity around the
perpetrator’s intention to cause harm, it is distinct from psychological aggression (Andersson &
Pearson, 1999; Cortina, 2008). Similarly, although incivility may seem similar to employee
emotional abuse (EEA), or bullying, in its more serious incarnations, it cannot be characterized
as such because EEA is perpetrated specifically by the powerful against the less powerful, and
incivility can be multidirectional (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003). Nor is there any overlap between
workplace incivility and physical aggression because uncivil behavior is defined as being low-
intensity, although it is possible for incivility to escalate into physical aggression (Cortina, 2008;
Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003).
There are several other types of negative workplace activity defined and explored by
researchers that overlap with, but that are distinct from, workplace incivility. The two that bear
the closest resemblance to incivility are counterproductive workplace behavior and workplace
deviance. Counterproductive workplace behavior refers to acts by employees that harm an
15

organization or its constituents (Penney & Spector, 2005). While some of these acts could be
framed as instances of workplace incivility, such as refusing to cooperate and lying, others are
qualitatively distinct because of their intensity and harmful intent, such as theft and sabotage
(Estes & Jia Wang, 2008). Workplace deviance overlaps with counterproductive workplace
behavior and refers to voluntary negative behaviors that violate norms (Mackey et al., 2019). In
minor cases, such as when a supervisor shows favoritism or when coworkers gossip, workplace
deviant behaviors might be considered examples of incivility. In more serious cases, however,
such as sexual harassment or verbal abuse, these behaviors go beyond the low intensity and
ambiguous intent that characterize incivility (Mackey et al., 2019).
In summary, there are three properties that distinguish workplace incivility from other
kinds of negative workplace behavior. First, incivility is marked by its low intensity; behavior
classified as uncivil does not reach the level of aggression, bullying or harassment (Cortina,
2008; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003). Second, uncivil acts are ambiguous with respect to harmful intent
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, 2008). It may be that the perpetrator of an uncivil act
intends to cause harm, but it is not possible to determine this unequivocally. Finally, workplace
incivility can occur between any individuals in a work setting (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003). The
phenomenon is not defined by a specific relationship or power gradient between the perpetrator
and the target.
Assessing Workplace Incivility
The overwhelming majority of research into workplace incivility is quantitative. In a
comprehensive review of empirical studies into workplace civility that were carried out between
2001 and 2014, Schilpzand et al. (2016) reported only one qualitative study in the 55 they found.
The researchers who explore workplace incivility quantitatively typically measure the extent of
16

the phenomenon to determine how it correlates with antecedent and outcome variables. To
measure incivility, many of these researchers use the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) created
by Cortina and her colleagues (2001) during a study of employees working within the U.S.
Eighth Circuit federal court system. This study and a companion piece of research that was
conducted the following year (Cortina et al., 2002) both arose against the backdrop of widely
reported incivility within the legal profession. As Cortina et al. (2002) noted, while numerous
smaller-scale studies had been carried out at the level of local bar associations to confirm the
problem of incivility, the legal field lacked a methodologically rigorous, large-scale investigation
of the phenomenon. This gap in the research led to the development of the WIS (Cortina et al.,
2001).
The WIS contains seven questionnaire items that ask the participant to state how often
they have experienced disrespectful, rude, or condescending behavior from either supervisors or
coworkers over the last five years. Although the WIS is still widely used in its original form
(e.g., Ferguson, 2012; Ogungmabila, 2013; Walsh et al., 2018), various researchers have
modified it to suit their purposes. For example, the WIS has been tweaked to record employees’
instigation of incivility rather than their experience of it (Leiter et al., 2010), to capture people’s
experiences of incivility on a given day (Nicholson & Griffin, 2015), and to distinguish incivility
perpetrated by supervisors from that perpetrated by coworkers (Gilin Oore et al., 2010).
Moreover, Cortina herself has developed a 12-item version of her original WIS (Cortina et al.,
2013). This updated version is designed to capture a fuller picture of participants’ experiences of
workplace incivility and contains questions about a range of incivility indicators, such as being
interrupted, having jokes made at one’s expense, and being given an unfairly low performance
evaluation (Cortina et al., 2013).
17

Aside from the widely used WIS, there are various other instruments that researchers
have designed to measure incivility. For example, Martin and Hine (2005) developed the Uncivil
Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (UWBQ), which contains 20 items designed to assess four
aspects of incivility: hostility, privacy invasion, exclusionary behavior, and gossiping. The
UWBQ has been used by some researchers in preference to the less expansive WIS (e.g., Karim
et al., 2015; Kirk et al., 2011; Sears & Humiston, 2015). Other instruments have been created to
measure incivility in specific contexts. For example, the Cyber Incivility Scale (Lim & Teo,
2009) contains 20 items that relate to uncivil behavior enacted via email and it has been used in
several subsequent studies of email incivility (e.g., Park & Haun, 2018; Park et al., 2018). In
contrast, the Incivility From Customers Scale contains 10 items that are designed to capture
employee experiences of rudeness perpetrated specifically by customers (Wilson & Holmvall,
2013).
Although most of the research into workplace incivility has been purely quantitative in
nature and has involved measuring incivility using survey instruments as described above, there
are some examples of researchers incorporating qualitative data into their work. In their study of
incivility experienced by attorneys of record in the U.S. Eighth Circuit federal court system,
Cortina et al. (2002) sent out a survey that contained a mixture of quantitative items and open-
ended, qualitative items that allowed participants to provide narrative information about their
experiences. Both sources of data were combined to create a rich picture of how much incivility
attorneys in the Eighth Circuit experienced, how incivility manifested itself, and how they coped
with it. Using a similar combination of quantitative and qualitative items, Sliter and Jones (2016)
explored the factors that contribute to customer incivility. In the open-ended questions they
18

posed, they asked participants to reflect on what they were thinking and feeling in situations
where they had been rude to a customer service employee.
While some incivility researchers have combined quantitative and qualitative data about
people’s experiences of incivility, others have taken a purely qualitative approach. For example,
McCarthy (2016) conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with American white-collar
workers in managerial jobs across a range of industries to explore the prevalence of rudeness in
their work environments, the impact of rudeness on relationships and productivity, and the
differences between face-to-face and email rudeness. The author adopted the qualitative
interview approach because she felt that using quantitative surveys would not have offered her a
sufficiently deep understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of rudeness. McCarthy
(2016) found that all participants had experienced some form of rudeness, but this prevalence
varied in a way that suggested people had different understandings of what constituted rude
behavior. In addition, participants reported that experiencing rude behavior from a colleague had
a negative impact on their emotions, on their relationships, and on their productivity. Finally,
participants distinguished between face-to-face and email rudeness, which suggests that the two
kinds of rudeness might constitute conceptually different phenomena.
In addition to McCarthy’s (2016) study of rudeness experienced by white-collar
managers, there is one other piece of qualitative research into incivility that is worthy of review
because it was conducted in the context of academia. Walrath et al. (2010) interviewed registered
nurses and nurse managers in various departments of an academic medical center using focus
groups. They asked participants about their experiences of three kinds of disruptive behavior:
incivility, psychological aggression, and violence. Participants identified several triggers of
disruptive behavior. Some of these triggers were intrapersonal (e.g., personality, personal issues,
19

stress, and fatigue), some were interpersonal (e.g., lack of communication), and some were
organizational (e.g., organizational culture and unit culture). In addition, participants reported
that disruptive behaviors had negative physical and emotional effects on nurses, tarnished
interpersonal relationships, and compromised patient care (Walrath et al., 2010).
Defining Workplace Civility
The concept of workplace incivility was first introduced by Andersson and Pearson in a
landmark 1999 research article. They define the concept thus: “Workplace incivility is low-
intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous,
displaying a lack of regard for others” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Andersson and
Pearson (1999) provide several examples of behavior that constitutes workplace incivility, such
as not saying please or thank you, taking loud personal calls in a shared workspace, and leaving
trash on the floor for custodial staff to handle.
Andersson and Pearson (1999) enriched their definition of the construct of workplace
incivility by defining workplace civility as its counterpoint. For Andersson and Pearson, civility
is “a behavior involving politeness and regard for others in the workplace, within workplace
norms for respect” (p. 454). Much like incivility, civility can be either intentional or
unintentional; people may behave civilly with the deliberate aim of benefiting the organization,
but they may also behave in this way because they feel it is morally correct to do so (Andersson
& Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, civility is distinguishable from interactional justice, since it may
not involve fairness, and from ingratiation, because there is no attempt to make the recipient of
the civil behavior behave in a certain way (Porath, Gerbasi & Schorch, 2015). Examples of civil
20

behavior include saying “thank you” at the end of an email, holding the elevator doors open for
someone, and actively listening to a person’s contributions in a meeting (Cortina et al., 2017).
Compared to the wealth of research that has been conducted into workplace incivility,
very few studies have explored workplace civility independently. Those studies that have
explored civility have done so through the vehicle of civility interventions, which are designed to
reduce incivility and increase civility in an organization (e.g., Gedro & Wang, 2013; Leiter et al.,
2011, 2012; Osatuke et al., 2009; Spence Laschinger et al., 2012). Because developing a civility
initiative in the context of higher education is the field goal of this study, it will be instructive to
discuss civility interventions later in this chapter.
Outcomes of Incivility
Research has demonstrated that experiencing workplace incivility is associated with a
wide range of negative outcomes. For individuals, these outcomes can be emotional, attitudinal,
or behavioral, in line with the categorization used by Schilpzand et al. (2016). Moreover, people
do not have to experience incivility themselves to be affected by it; simply witnessing an act of
incivility can impact them detrimentally.
Outcomes of Experiencing Incivility
Workplace incivility is associated with numerous negative outcomes for the person
experiencing it. These outcomes can be emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral.
Emotional Outcomes
Studies have shown that experiencing incivility can have a detrimental effect on various
elements of a person’s emotional constitution. Sakurai and Jex (2012) surveyed full-time
employees at an American university and found a significant correlation between being the target
of incivility at work and experiencing a range of negative emotions, including anger, fear,
21

sadness, and disgust. Similarly, Porath and Pearson (2012) conducted a survey of employed
MBA students at an American university and asked them to consider an occasion on which they
had been the target of incivility at work and to reflect on the emotional impact it had on them. Of
the respondents surveyed, 86% reported feeling angry, 56% said they had felt sad, and 46%
reported experiencing fear. The finding that people experience anger in response to uncivil
treatment at work was supported by Liu et al. (2020), who surveyed employees at a Chinese
company. They asked one group of participants to think of and write about an incivility
experience at work and they asked the other group to think and write about their favorite fictional
character. The authors then assessed the emotional state of both groups. The participants who
were asked to call to mind an experience of incivility reported feeling significantly angrier than
the participants in the other group.
Sometimes the emotional impact of incivility can be serious enough to manifest itself as
depression. Lim and Lee (2011) found that Singaporean employees in a range of industries were
more likely to experience symptoms of depression if they were the target of uncivil behavior at
work. Geldart et al. (2018) observed a similar association between incivility and depression in
their study of Canadian postal workers. Finally, Miner et al. (2012) noted that undergraduate
students who experienced incivility were more likely to suffer depressive symptoms. Although
Miner et al. (2012) focused on students rather than employees, and although the incivility the
authors explored was specifically tied to the gender of the participants, the findings still support
the assertion that incivility, whether it be in a workplace or in another organizational context, can
be predictive of depression.

22

Attitudinal Outcomes
In addition to having a detrimental emotional impact, experiencing workplace incivility
can also negatively affect employees’ attitudes while they are at work. For example, various
studies have shown that employees who are subject to incivility are less likely to be satisfied
with their jobs. Welbourne et al. (2015) observed a significant correlation between experiencing
coworker incivility and job dissatisfaction among American university employees. Interestingly,
the authors found that this correlation was stronger for individualistic employees than for
employees who were more socially minded. Wilson and Holmvall (2013) noted a similar
correlation when they surveyed Canadian customer service employees who were employed in
retail and in restaurants. When these employees experienced workplace incivility from
customers, they were more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs.
The lack of satisfaction that targets of incivility feel can extend from the job itself to the
people around them. Not only did Bunk and Magley (2013) find that employees who
experienced incivility were more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs, but the authors also
found that these employees were more likely to be dissatisfied with their coworkers and their
supervisors. Lim and Lee (2011) observed a similar correlation between experiencing incivility
and dissatisfaction with one’s coworkers. Hur et al. (2015) found, furthermore, that employees
who are treated disrespectfully by customers are less likely to feel customer oriented. As well as
having a low opinion of their coworkers, supervisors, and customers, employees who have
experienced incivility can end up feeling this way about the people they interact with outside of
work. In a study of American employees and their domestic partners, Ferguson (2012) found that
employees who felt they were the targets of incivility were more likely to be dissatisfied with
23

their marriages. Moreover, the partners of those employees were also more likely to experience
marital dissatisfaction.
Behavioral Outcomes
As the studies described above have shown, workplace incivility can have a deleterious
impact on both the emotions and the attitudes of employees. It is not surprising, then, that the
internal impact of experiencing incivility can manifest itself in different forms of undesirable
workplace behavior. For example, Chen et al. (2013) surveyed Chinese manufacturing
employees and their supervisors and found that those employees who reported uncivil treatment
from a coworker were more likely to be disengaged from work and less likely to be rated by their
supervisors as performing well. Similarly, Rahim and Cosby (2016) surveyed triads of
employees, coworkers, and supervisors in a range of industries in America and established a
significant negative correlation between experienced incivility and job performance. This
negative correlation between incivility and performance has been observed in employees
working in various other contexts, such as Chinese hospitals (Jiang et al., 2019), Taiwanese
hotels (Wang & Chen, 2020), and American restaurants (Cho et al., 2016).
As well as impacting engagement and performance, workplace incivility can also be
associated with different kinds of withdrawal behavior. For example, Park and Huan (2018)
observed that an employee was significantly more likely to withdraw from both tasks and people
at work if he or she had experienced incivility during the previous week. Several studies have
shown that employees who report being targets of incivility are more likely to be absent from
work (Giumetti et al., 2012; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Sliter et al., 2012). Finally, experiencing
incivility can be associated with a desire to leave the organization (Rahim & Cosby, 2016;
24

Sharma & Singh, 2016; Wilson & Holmvall, 2013) and fulfilment of this desire (Porath &
Pearson, 2012).
The final behavioral outcome of incivility that warrants discussion is incivility itself. In
their initial exposition of the concept of workplace incivility, Andersson and Pearson (2001)
asserted that incivility can pass back and forth between people and spiral in its intensity. In the
years since this assertion, numerous studies have confirmed that being on the receiving end of
incivility is predictive of its perpetration. For example, Torkelson et al. (2016) investigated the
antecedents of workplace incivility as experienced by teachers and other staff in a Swedish
school district. They found that the single biggest predictor of people instigating incivility in the
workplace was experiencing incivility from a coworker. Gallus et al. (2014) also found that
being the target of incivility was the biggest predictor of incivility instigation. They surveyed
employees across a range of American organizations and found that 72% of them had both
experienced and instigated incivility at some point within the previous year. Looking at the
cascading effects of incivility exhibited by customers, Kim and Qu (2019) explored the spread of
the phenomenon among frontline restaurant workers in the US. They found that employees who
had been treated uncivilly by customers were significantly more likely to experience burnout;
burnout, in turn, was predictive of employee incivility towards both coworkers and customers.
Outcomes of Witnessing Incivility
Although most studies that explore the outcomes of incivility focus on people who have
experienced it themselves, there are some studies that show how incivility can negatively impact
people who merely witness it. In one such study, Totterdell et al. (2012) asked doctors and
nurses in a U.K. hospital to answer survey questions immediately after observing interactions
between their coworkers over the course of 15 workdays. Analysis of this diary data showed that
25

participants felt significantly more emotionally drained after witnessing an unpleasant interaction
than after witnessing a pleasant one. Miner and Eischeid (2012) also found that observing
incivility had a negative impact on the observer’s emotional state. The scholars surveyed
American restaurant employees and established that witnessing uncivil interactions was
associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing anger, demoralization, fear, and anxiety
(Miner & Eischeid, 2012). In addition, these emotional responses were gendered. That is,
women’s responses were stronger when they witnessed women being untreated uncivilly than
when they witnessed men being treated in this way. Similarly, men’s responses were stronger
when they witnessed men receiving uncivil treatment than when they witnessed women
receiving it (Miner & Eischeid, 2012).
Not only does witnessing incivility have an affective impact on observers, but it can also
have a behavioral impact. As is the case with experiencing incivility, witnessing incivility can
lead to the subsequent instigation of it. Holm et al. (2019) surveyed members of a Swedish trade
union and found people who had observed a supervisor or a coworker behaving uncivilly were
more likely to instigate incivility themselves. When they observed a supervisor behaving
uncivilly, they were also likely to experience greater stress and less job satisfaction, possibly
because a supervisor is perceived as having greater impact on an employee’s circumstances than
a coworker is. As well as being more likely to instigate incivility, people who witness a specific
act of incivility are more likely to treat the perpetrator unfavorably than the target. In an
experimental study, Reich and Hershcovis (2015) put participants into discussion groups in
which a group member responded to another’s proposed idea either civilly or uncivilly.
Participants in the uncivil condition were more likely to allocate undesirable tasks to the group
member who responded rudely than to the recipient of the rudeness.
26

Although witnessing incivility can have a negative impact on witnesses, it can also act as
an emollient for targets of incivility. In an experimental study in which undergraduate students
played a computer game while text-chatting with other players, Schilpzand et al. (2016) found
that if someone experienced incivility and then witnessed someone else experiencing the same
incivility, they were less likely to blame themselves for the incivility than if they had not
witnessed someone else experiencing it.
Antecedents of Incivility
Research has identified several antecedents that are associated with workplace incivility.
Because most of this research is correlational in nature, these antecedents cannot strictly be
thought of as causes of the phenomenon. Rather, they are factors that co-occur with it. Most
research studies that have explored the antecedents of incivility have focused on those
antecedents that are associated with experiencing incivility. A smaller number of studies have
examined those antecedents that are related to the perpetration of incivility.
Antecedents of Experiencing Incivility
Antecedents that are predictive of whether someone experiences incivility in the
workplace can be considered in two broad categories: individual differences and situational
factors.
Individual Differences
Researchers have demonstrated that personality, age, gender, and ethnicity can all have
an impact on how likely someone is to experience incivility. Milam et al. (2009) found that
employees who were seen as less agreeable were more likely to be the targets of uncivil
treatment. The scholars suggested that this might be because people who are not agreeable are
seen as inviting this kind of uncivil behavior. In addition, Milam et al. (2009) found that
27

employees rated high in neuroticism were more likely to report experiencing incivility. However,
Milam et al. (2009) note that this might be because those high in neuroticism are more sensitive
to their environments and perhaps more predisposed to regard behavior as uncivil. In a study of
university students, Naimon et al. (2013) also found a significant negative association between
agreeableness and the likelihood of experiencing incivility. In addition, they found that
individuals who experienced pervasive negative emotions or who felt a poor sense of control
over outcomes in the work environment were more likely to perceive themselves as targets of
incivility (Naimon et al., 2013). Conversely, those who perceived a sense of spirituality in the
workplace were less likely to report experiencing incivility.
Beyond personality differences, a person’s age can affect how likely they are to be the
target of incivility. In a study of incivility among Canadian nurses, Leiter et al. (2010) compared
the survey responses of Generation X nurses (i.e., nurses who were born between 1961 and
1981) with the responses of Baby Boomer nurses (i.e., nurses who were born between 1943 and
1960). They found that the Generation X nurses reported significantly more incivility from
coworkers and supervisors than did the Baby Boomer nurses, and they experienced more distress
as a result. Leiter et al. (2010) suggest that this finding could be due to different thresholds that
the two generations might have for regarding a behavior as uncivil.
Gender is another characteristic that can predict the extent to which someone experiences
incivility. In a series of three studies involving government, law enforcement, and military
employees, Cortina et al. (2013) found that women were significantly more likely to experience
incivility than were men. Miner et al. (2014) observed a similar relationship between gender and
incivility in their nationwide survey of law professors. Gabriel et al. (2018) delved deeper into
28

this relationship and found that women who reported being targets of uncivil behavior were more
likely to experience this behavior from other women than from men.
The final individual characteristic that can be associated with being the target of incivility
is race. In their study of government, law enforcement, and military employees cited above,
Cortina et al. (2013) found that people of color were significantly more likely to report
experiencing incivility than White people. Meta-analyses by Jones et al. (2016) and by McCord
et al. (2018) have provided robust support for a more general finding: people of color experience
more workplace mistreatment of various kinds (e.g., harassment, discrimination, bullying and
incivility) than White people, and this mistreatment tends to be based on the target’s race.
Situational Factors
In addition to the various individual characteristics that can predict whether someone will
be the target of incivility, there are elements related to the workplace environment that can
determine how likely someone is to be treated uncivilly. For example, in their study of American
corporate employees, Trudel and Reio (2011) found a significant link between conflict
management style and the perception of incivility. More specifically, individuals who used a
dominant, coercive approach to resolving conflict reported experiencing more incivility than
individuals who used a more collaborative, problem-solving approach. Taylor and Kluemper
(2012) surveyed pairs of American employees and supervisors and found that feeling ambiguity
about one’s role and experiencing conflicting demands because of one’s role were both
associated with greater reported civility. Finally, civility climate has been shown to be an
important predictive factor. Walsh et al. (2012) explored the impact of the organizational civility
climate on employees’ experiences of incivility. They found that the more civil the
organizational climate, the less likely employees were to report experiencing incivility.
29

Similarly, at the team level, Paulin and Griffin (2016) found that a negative civility climate was
associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing incivility.
Antecedents of Instigating Incivility
Just as there are individual characteristics and situational factors that can predict how
likely an employee is to experience incivility, so too are there individual characteristics and
situational factors that can predict how likely an employee is to instigate it.
Individual Differences
Researchers have identified several individual characteristics that are associated with the
instigation of incivility. Meier and Semmer (2013) surveyed Swiss employees and found that
people who felt that they gave more to the organization than they received in return, and
experienced more anger as a result, were more likely to engage in uncivil behavior than people
who did not feel this way. Lanzo et al. (2016) also looked at the effect of employees’
contributions to their organizations on incivility. They surveyed American workers across
various industries and found that workaholics (i.e., people who feel a compulsion to work
regardless of negative consequences) were more likely to experience stress and, consequently,
instigate incivility. Similarly, Birkeland and Nerstad (2016) found a link between obsessive
passion for work and the perpetration of incivility. They conducted a longitudinal study of
Norwegian workers in the technical sector and observed that the more passionate an employee
was, the more likely they were to behave uncivilly. Moreover, the likelihood of them behaving in
an uncivil way was even greater when they experienced a sense of mastery in their work domain.
Situational Factors
Researchers have observed various organizational and environmental antecedents of
workplace incivility instigation. One such antecedent is poor leadership. Harold and Holtz (2015)
30

surveyed pairs of employees and supervisors and found that a passive leadership style on the part
of supervisor, in which the supervisor displayed apathy and inaction in response to workplace
issues, was associated with the employee instigating incivility. Another situational antecedent
that has been shown to be associated with incivility instigation is organizational inefficiency.
Viotti et al. (2018) surveyed employees in seven American hospitals at the beginning and end of
a one-year period. They found that organizational efficiency was negatively correlated with the
instigation of uncivil behavior. Furthermore, the authors determined that inefficiency and
incivility both impacted each other in what they posited to be a spiraling effect.
A second factor that can predict how likely an employee is to instigate incivility is the
demanding nature of their job. Koon and Pun (2018) found that Malaysian employees with
demanding jobs were more likely to engage in uncivil behavior because of feeling emotionally
exhausted. Similarly, Jensen et al. (2019) explored the impact of job demands in retail stores
across the United States and found a significant association between pressure to perform and the
instigation of incivility. Torkelson et al. (2016) also demonstrated a positive relationship between
job demands and the perpetration of uncivil behavior. In addition, they identified several other
elements in the organizational environment that contributed to this behavior: job insecurity, lack
of coworker support, and organizational change.
The single biggest predictor of incivility instigation in the Torkelson et al. (2016) study
cited above, however, was experiencing incivility. As discussed earlier in this chapter, workplace
incivility is subject to a contagion effect: If someone is treated badly, they are more likely to treat
others badly. In line with this observation, various studies have demonstrated that being a target
of incivility is predictive of behaving uncivilly, either towards the perpetrator or towards others.
Van Jaarsfeld et al. (2010) found that American store employees who were the target of incivility
31

from customers would, consequently, treat customers less civilly; Loh and Loi (2018) observed a
similar association between experiencing incivility and instigating it among Australian white-
collar workers; and Foulk et al. (2016) conducted a series of experiments with undergraduate
students in which the authors demonstrated the causal impact of experiencing incivility on its
subsequent instigation. The power and salience of uncivil behavior are significant. As discussed
earlier in this chapter, merely witnessing incivility can be enough to inspire someone to instigate
it themselves (Reich & Hershcovis, 2015).
Responding to Incivility
As well as exploring the outcomes and antecedents of workplace incivility, researchers
have studied the ways in which individuals and organizations can mitigate the effects of
incivility and reduce its occurrence. Some of this research has involved the implementation of
structured civility interventions that are designed to lessen incivility across a whole organization.
Mitigating Incivility
There are various individual and organizational factors that can lessen the impact of
incivility. Two individual factors that deserve mention are emotional intelligence and
mindfulness. In their study of chefs at tourist hotels in China, Chen and Wang (2019) found that
experiencing workplace incivility was associated with decreased job satisfaction. However, the
authors also found that job satisfaction was impacted less for participants who were more
emotionally intelligent. This suggests that working on increasing one’s emotional intelligence
may be a useful strategy for coping with incivility in the workplace. Mindfulness can also be a
useful coping strategy. Tarraf et al. (2019) surveyed American employees to explore how certain
behaviors related to mindfulness affected how much they were negatively impacted by incivility.
The scholars observed that people who acted with self-awareness and without judgment, and
32

who engaged in the practice of describing their thoughts, experienced less stress and were more
forgiving in response to being treated uncivilly (Tarraf et al., 2019).
At the group and organizational level, there are several factors that have been shown to
mitigate the effects of incivility. These all relate to support, whether from supervisors,
coworkers, or the organization more broadly. For example, in their study of nurses in an
American research and teaching hospital, Sguera et al. (2016) found that nurses who experienced
incivility were less likely to want to leave the organization if they engaged in team-building
sessions with their colleagues and attended frequent one-on-one meetings with their supervisors.
Sakurai and Jex (2015) observed a similar effect after surveying American university employees.
Those employees who felt supported by their supervisors experienced less negative emotion in
response to uncivil treatment from a coworker. Geldart et al. (2015) also looked at the mitigating
effects of support, but they focused specifically on support provided by coworkers. Among the
Canadian postal workers they surveyed, the authors found that levels of anxiety and depression
in response to incivility were lower when there was a perception of social support from one’s
colleagues. Finally, Miner et al. (2012) considered the mitigating effect of support in a broad,
organizational sense. They observed that people who felt valued and cared for by their
organizations experienced less stress and greater job satisfaction in response to incivility than did
people who did not benefit from this kind of organizational support. All these findings suggest
that being supported by one’s coworkers, by one’s supervisor, and by the organization itself, can
help reduce the negative impact of being treated badly in the workplace.
Reducing Incivility
As well as exploring the factors that can mitigate the negative effects of incivility,
researchers have studied how incivility might be reduced in organizations. Two interrelated
33

themes that have emerged in this work are civility norms and leadership style. According to
Fiske (1984), norms are “behaviors of group members that act as implicit rules, considered to be
both descriptive of what group members are and prescriptive of how they should be’’ (p. 484). In
their study of U.S. state government employees, Walsh et al. (2012) demonstrated that when
norms relating to civility were present in a workgroup, employees experienced less workplace
incivility from their supervisors and coworkers. They extrapolated from their findings to
conclude that developing workplaces that are free from incivility requires leaders to include
statements about conduct in the organization’s values, to define behavioral expectations for
employees, and to model civil behavior themselves (Walsh et al., 2012). Similarly, Spence
Laschinger and Read (2016) found that when Canadian nursing leaders fostered civility norms in
their workgroups, new graduate nurses experienced less workplace incivility. The scholars
concluded that leaders play a pivotal role in fostering civility within organizations by promoting
norms for such behavior.
Whether or not a leader promotes civility norms in an organization is partly a function of
their leadership style. Some leadership styles have been shown to be associated with civility and
other styles have been shown to be associated with incivility. In their study of retail stores across
America, Jensen et al. (2019) found that employees reported less incivility when they had
managers who exhibited ethical leadership behaviors, such as disciplining people who violated
ethical standards and setting an example of how to do things in an ethical way. Walsh et al.
(2018) also studied the impact of ethical leadership on incivility. They surveyed pairs of
employees and coworkers and demonstrated a positive association between people’s perceptions
of ethical leadership and their perceptions of organizational norms for respect. Perceived norms
for respect were, in turn, negatively associated with experienced incivility. In a second study, the
34

authors found that charismatic leadership behaviors also had a positive impact on norms for
respect and a negative impact on incivility.
Similarly, Lee and Jensen (2014) studied the impact of what they refer to as active
constructive leadership and passive corrective leadership on employees’ experiences of
workplace incivility. Active constructive leadership is a composite of transformational
leadership, which involves motivating employees to work towards a shared vision of the
organization, and transactional leadership, which is focused on establishing expectations and
rewarding employees for meeting those expectations. Conversely, passive corrective leadership
is a combination of management by exception, which is the addressing of problems only once
they become serious, and laissez-faire leadership, which entails non-leadership and a lack of
commitment to the organization (Lee & Jensen, 2014). The scholars found that active
constructive leadership was negatively associated with workplace incivility and that passive
corrective leadership was positively associated with it (Lee & Jensen, 2014).
In summary, civility norms and positive styles of leadership are associated with lower
levels of incivility in organizations. What this dual relationship suggests is that establishing
norms for respect and civility, and training leaders to adopt positive leadership styles, might be
powerful ways of lowering the amount of incivility that occurs in an organization.
Types of Civility Interventions
There are only a few civility interventions that have been described in the workplace
incivility literature. Of these interventions, there are two that offer insight into what measures
might be effective in improving civility in higher education institutions.
Gedro and Wang (2013) describe a workplace civility training workshop that they
designed for use at Empire State College, a college within the State University of New York. The
35

workshop is divided into three parts. The first part introduces participants to the vocabulary and
concepts of workplace incivility. The second part guides participants in the process of classifying
common workplace behaviors along a “continuum of civility”, a process that stimulates frank
discussion of civility and incivility within a safe environment. In the third part of the workshop,
participants are divided into small groups and each group is asked to discuss a case study that
relates to incivility or bullying within an organization. The workshop concludes with the
facilitators offering recommendations for creating a civil workplace and with the participants
reflecting on their experience of the workshop and on their intentions after leaving the workshop
(Gedro & Wang, 2013). Gedro and Wang (2013) administered this workshop on a number of
occasions and at the time of their writing of the article, over 800 employees at Empire State
College had participated. However, the authors’ assessment of the workshop as successful was
based only on participant feedback about how much they enjoyed and valued the experience.
There was no assessment of the actual impact of the workshop on civility or incivility levels in
the organization. For this reason, while the Gedro and Wang (2013) workshop might be a useful
catalyst for discussion about the design of civility interventions in higher education, it should not
be adopted unequivocally as a best practice.
The second civility intervention worthy of discussion is the most comprehensive and
widely cited one in the literature. The intervention is called CREW (Civility, Respect, and
Engagement at Work) and it was designed and first implemented by Osatuke et al. (2009) at the
Veterans Hospital Administration (VHA). In a quasi-experimental study, the authors introduced
the intervention to a total of 23 different VHA workgroups across different sites, and they
assessed civility before the intervention and then again, a year later. Compared to workgroups
that did not receive the intervention, the workgroups into which CREW had been introduced
36

demonstrated significantly greater civility after a year. CREW has since been implemented and
tested quasi-experimentally by a group of authors working with Canadian nurses. These authors
have found it to be successful in reducing supervisor incivility, increasing coworker civility,
increasing job satisfaction, reducing absenteeism, and increasing trust in management (Leiter et
al., 2011, 2012; Spence Laschinger et al., 2012).
The CREW intervention as implemented consists of five components: direct
conversations between employees about specific workplace situations; exercises that encourage
new ways of interacting in the workplace; facilitator leadership that inspires people to break old
habits; explicit support from the leaders in the organization; and ownership of the civility
improvement process by employees themselves (Leiter et al., 2011). More specifically, CREW
takes place over a period of six months and involves the following sequence of activities. First,
participating employees and management are taught about CREW and about the concepts of
civility and incivility. Next, participating employees are surveyed to establish a baseline of
civility and to capture organizational attitudes and behaviors. At that point, facilitators and
organizational leaders meet for community building and for training in the CREW methodology.
After these three preliminary steps are complete, the work of the intervention begins. This
involves weekly CREW meetings that include 10-15 employees who work in the same unit along
with a facilitator. During these meetings, the facilitator leads the participants through exercises
and discussions that are taken from the CREW Toolkit (Leiter et al., 2011). As well as guidelines
and resources that help with facilitation, the CREW Toolkit includes a repository of 40 exercises
and discussion topics. Exercises involve activities such as dispute resolution, brainstorming, and
active listening. Discussion topics include respect, disrespect, professionalism, accountability,
conflict management, and leadership (Leiter et al., 2011). The last two stages of CREW involve
37

additional meetings between facilitators and organizational leaders. The first meeting takes place
at the halfway point of the intervention, and the second meeting takes place at the end. In both
meetings, the emphasis is on community building. In addition, the first meeting offers people a
refresher on their CREW training, and the second meeting offers guidance on sustaining civility
work in the organization after the intervention is complete (Leiter et al., 2011).
The CREW intervention has been shown to be an effective approach to increasing civility
and creating other positive workplace outcomes. However, only a small number of studies have
assessed the effectiveness of CREW, and these studies have focused on VHA employees and on
Canadian nurses. For this reason, caution must be exercised in applying the principles and
practices of CREW wholesale to higher education environments, which are likely to be different
to the VHA and to Canadian hospitals in many respects.
Qualitative Studies of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education
This dissertation is a qualitative study of civility and incivility as experienced by staff in
higher education institutions. To frame the study, it is instructive to conclude this part of the
literature review with a consideration of two research articles that have explored civility and
incivility qualitatively in a similar context. One of the articles focuses on how administrative and
technical staff from three Irish universities experienced workplace mistreatment (Hodgins &
Mannix McNamara, 2017) and the other article explores how the faculty at a Canadian medical
school experienced incivility (Pattani et al., 2018).
Hodgins and Mannix McNamara (2017) conducted qualitative interviews with nine self-
selecting administrative employees from three of Ireland’s nine universities. The participants
reported experiencing and witnessing three types of workplace mistreatment instigated by
managers and subordinates: work-related ill-treatment, predatory bullying, and incivility. All
38

nine participants attributed negative health outcomes to these experiences and a common theme
that emerged from all the interviews was how experiencing mistreatment can erode one’s sense
of self. Participants felt that the mistreatment was perpetrated as the result of a power dynamic.
Sometimes this power dynamic was hierarchical; that is, a subordinate would be mistreated by a
supervisor. In other cases, the power dynamic was social; that is, an employee would be
mistreated by a more popular coworker. Most participants reported that, to cope with
mistreatment, they adopted various coping mechanisms that align with those described earlier in
this chapter, such as mindfulness classes and educational courses. Analysis of the interview data
led the authors to the conclusion, especially relevant to the current study, that mistreatment
occurs within a nexus of individual and organizational factors and that interventions should cater
for this complex interconnection.
In their qualitative study of workplace incivility experienced by faculty at a Canadian
medical school, Pattani et al. (2018) conducted semi-structured interviews with 49 full-time
faculty members at all ranks and in all academic roles. Every faculty member reported having
witnessed, heard about, or experienced incivility within the work environment. Participants felt
that incivility had a detrimental effect on the mental health of those experiencing it and that it
negatively impacted the workplace culture. In some cases, this was enough to compromise
patient safety. Participants also felt that the organization offered no mechanism for addressing
incivility that did not involve an extreme sanction such as the revocation of physician privileges
at a hospital. Of relevance to the current study, the authors asked the faculty they interviewed to
offer their opinions on the causes of incivility at the school. The faculty suggested several factors
that contributed to incivility. First, they felt that the status of physicians as not strictly employees
gave them license to behave as they wished without consequences. Second, the faculty noted the
39

lack of connection that existed between different departments at the school. This lack of
connection allowed faculty in different departments to develop prejudices and faulty assumptions
about each other. Third, some participants observed that when leaders modeled undesirable
behaviors, this impacted the culture of the department and encouraged others to behave similarly.
Leaders who took no action in response to reports of incivility were also seen as perpetuating the
problem. Finally, in line with Hodgins and Mannix McNamara’s (2017) observation that
incivility typically occurred across a power gradient, the participants in Pattani et al.’s (2018)
study suggested that uncivil behavior was ignored and even condoned when perpetrated by
members of “power cliques” (p. 1569).
Pattani et al. (2018) also asked the participants in their study about their ideas for
interventions that might help reduce incivility within the school. These interventions fell into
three thematic categories: preventing incivility, reporting incivility, and addressing incivility.
Various suggestions were made in the area of preventing incivility: providing faculty with a clear
definition of incivility and with reference examples of uncivil behavior; clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of the school and of the hospitals in which faculty teach; sharing anonymous data
about incivility and examples of uncivil behavior across the school; training leaders in how to
model civil behavior and how to identify uncivil behavior; and allowing leaders to consider
civility when hiring faculty and when evaluating performance. With regard to reporting
incivility, participants were agreed that processes for doing so should be defined clearly and in
greater detail and should preserve the confidentiality of both the reporter and the alleged
perpetrator. Finally, participants offered their opinions on how incivility should be addressed.
Most participants suggested that the organization’s response to an incident of incivility should:
acknowledge the different perspectives of those involved; focus on the rehabilitation of the
40

perpetrator via opportunities for mentoring, coaching, and training; and seek to understand the
organizational factors behind the incident, such as stress and burnout. Additionally, in cases of
persistent incivility, participants suggested that leaders need to take clearly identified disciplinary
steps (Pattani et al., 2018).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is based on Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis methodology. Gap analysis offers a blueprint that researchers and practitioners can
follow to improve organizational performance. The fundamental principle of the methodology is
that a gap exists between current performance and desired future performance. Gap analysis
offers guidance on how to bridge this gap. More specifically, gap analysis defines a process that
should be followed if performance improvement is to be achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008). First,
performance goals need to be identified. Next, it is necessary to establish what gaps exist
between current performance and the stated goals. These gaps can be analyzed to determine their
underlying causes. These causes can, in turn, be used to identify what influences at both the
individual level and the organizational level might be able to be manipulated to close the
performance gap. Clark and Estes (2008) categorize these influences as relating to the knowledge
of individuals, to their motivation, or to organizational factors; these influences are often referred
to collectively as KMO influences. Once an intervention based on these influences has been
implemented, the final step of the methodology involves evaluating the success of the
intervention (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study followed the steps described in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework. It analyzed the gap between current levels of workplace civility in higher education
institutions and the desired levels of workplace civility as perceived by administrative staff. The
41

cornerstone of the analysis was an exploration of the KMO influences that could be leveraged to
enable administrative staff to close this gap. The insights gained from this exploration were then
used to design a program that can engage higher education administrative staff in the
improvement of the civility environments in their institutions.
This study interviewed higher education administrative staff to gain insight into the KMO
influences that impact their behavior at work. To set the context for these interviews and to guide
the design of the interview protocol, it was instructive to propose a set of assumed influences as a
starting point. The remainder of this literature review will present an initial set of assumed
influences that is based on both context-specific literature and on general literature related to
learning, motivation, and organizational factors.
Knowledge Influences
As discussed earlier in this chapter, there are very few examples in the literature of higher
education institutions addressing the problem of workplace incivility. As a result, workplace
incivility and workplace civility are likely to be novel concepts to many higher education staff.
Thus, the stakeholders in this study are likely to need more knowledge in this area if they are to
contribute successfully to the creation of a more civil working environment and a program to
address it (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Krathwohl (2002) identifies four categories of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the terminology, elements and details
of a given subject area (Anderson, 2005). Conceptual knowledge consists of abstract ideas such
as categories, principles, theories, and models (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge refers
to the methods, techniques and skills that define how something is done (Anderson, 2005).
Metacognitive knowledge refers to awareness of oneself and of one’s cognitive processes
42

(Krathwohl, 2002). The assumed knowledge influences on higher education staff are classified
using these four categories. Assigning a knowledge influence to one of the four categories is
helpful for identifying and applying literature that might be helpful in understanding it. There are
three knowledge influences that are assumed to be relevant to staff: Two are conceptual, and one
is metacognitive. These three influences are described in turn below.
Administrative Staff Need to Understand What Constitutes Workplace Incivility and
Workplace Civility
If administrative staff are to contribute to institution-wide efforts to improve civility, they
first must understand what constitutes incivility and civility. This understanding represents
conceptual knowledge. In their study of the antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility
from the perspective of human resource practitioners, Reio and Ghosh (2009) noted that if
incivility is to be addressed in an organization, employees need to understand what incivility is
and to develop a collective definition of incivility.
Regarding workplace civility, in their successful implementation of the CREW
intervention across 48 workgroups in 28 sites within the VHA, Osatuke et al. (2009)
acknowledged that each site and workgroup was likely to have its own culturally specific
understanding of what constituted civil behavior. For this reason, the CREW practitioners helped
participants develop their knowledge about civility in two ways. First, the practitioners presented
elements of the definition of civility that were felt to be common across all sites and workgroups.
In the context of CREW, there were two important definitional components of civility: the
treatment of people equitably across the organization regardless of personal relationships; and
the foundation of civility upon an awareness of one’s behavior and the impact it has on others
(Osatuke et al., 2009). Second, and more importantly, the practitioners built upon this common
43

definitional platform by fostering within teams a collaborative approach to developing local
civility knowledge. Participants were encouraged to reach an agreement among themselves about
the specific kinds of behavior that were desired by the team compared with those kinds that were
not. This approach to building a base of civility knowledge was the first step in the CREW
intervention and it paved the way for significant increases in civility at all sites where CREW
was implemented (Osatuke et al., 2009). Other researchers have implemented the CREW
intervention and found it to be similarly successful (Leiter, 2011, 2012; Spence Laschinger,
2012). For this reason, if administrative staff are to contribute to the improvement of civility
within their institutions, they need to know generally what incivility and civility entail and they
also need to develop their own collective body of knowledge about what civility means at the
local level.
Administrative Staff Need to Understand the Negative Impact of Workplace Incivility
In addition to understanding what constitutes uncivil and civil behavior, administrative
staff need to know how incivility impacts people. Once administrative staff understand what
constitutes incivility, they can develop knowledge about how it can affect others. The numerous
negative effects of workplace incivility have been discussed earlier in this chapter. For example,
workplace incivility is associated with negative emotions (Sakurai & Jex, 2012), depression (Lim
& Lee, 2011), job dissatisfaction (Welbourne et al., 2015), absenteeism (Giumetti et al., 2012),
and turnover intention (Sharma & Singh, 2016). Lasater et al. (2015) acknowledged the
foundational importance of educating employees about the nature and impact of incivility in their
design of a three-phase intervention to address incivility among nursing staff at a large American
academic medical center. In the first phase of the intervention, the authors taught participants
definitions and examples of incivility. In addition, they shared information about the impact of
44

incivility on staff health, staff performance, and patient safety. The intervention was effective in
reducing the amount of civility perceived by participants. This finding is consistent with the
assumption that administrative staff are likely to behave more civilly if they know what incivility
is and if they understand the undesirable effect it can have on those around them in the
workplace.
Administrative Staff Need to Know and Be Able to Reflect on Their Behaviors in Order to
Maximize Civility in the Workplace
One of the features of workplace incivility that distinguishes it from other undesirable
workplace behaviors, such as psychological aggression and employee emotional abuse, is
ambiguity around whether the perpetrator intends to cause harm (Anderson & Pearson, 1999). In
situations where there is no such intention, the perpetrator may not be aware of the negative
impact of their behavior. In a case study of workplace incivility in the nursing arena,
Khadjehturian (2012) suggested that increasing self-awareness is important if nurses are to
identify when their disruptive conduct has a detrimental effect on others in their unit. Similarly,
as discussed above, Osatuke et al. (2009) identified awareness of one’s own behavior and its
impact on others as a cornerstone of civility. In line with the work of these scholars, it is assumed
that administrative staff need to know how to increase their self-awareness so that they can
determine when they are behaving uncivilly and modulate their behavior accordingly.
Developing this metacognitive knowledge will allow administrative staff to maximize the civility
with which they treat their colleagues.
Table 2 presents the three knowledge influences that are assumed to affect administrative
staff’s participation in civility programs. Each knowledge influence is classified according to one
of the four categories described by Krathwohl (2002).
45

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type Assumed knowledge influence
Conceptual Administrative staff need to understand what constitutes workplace
incivility and workplace civility.

Conceptual Administrative staff need to understand the negative impact of
workplace incivility.

Metacognitive

Administrative staff need to know and be able to reflect on their
behaviors in order to maximize civility in the workplace.

Motivation Influences
If administrative staff are to be involved in the creation of a more civil workplace, in
addition to having foundational knowledge about civility, they need to be motivated to behave in
a civil way. Motivation can be thought of as the strength of an individual’s desire to achieve a
goal (Schmidt et al., 2010). Clark and Estes (2008) propose that motivation manifests itself in the
work environment in three different forms: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active
choice involves an individual deciding to strive for a particular goal; persistence involves the
individual continuing to strive for that goal in the face of other goals that compete for their
resources; and mental effort refers to how much psychological energy the individual invests in
working towards the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation is a critical factor in determining
whether an employee will demonstrate civility in the workplace. The importance of motivation in
this respect is evident in Osatuke et al.’s (2009) CREW intervention, which is founded on the
notion that a person’s motivation is the main driver behind their ability to change.
46

There are four influences that are assumed to underpin the motivation of administrative
staff to engage in civil behavior in the workplace. Each of these influences operates in
accordance with a different motivational construct. This section will describe each motivational
construct generally before discussing the specific influence associated with it. The four
constructs that will be considered are self-efficacy, social learning theory, affect, and utility
value.
Administrative Staff Need to Believe in Their Ability to Demonstrate Civility in the Workplace
Bandura (1997) conceives of self-efficacy as the belief in one’s ability to achieve a
desired outcome. Self-efficacy impacts human functioning in various ways, but of most
pertinence to the current study, it affects motivation (Bandura, 1997). If an individual
experiences high self-efficacy with respect to a certain goal, they are more likely to feel
motivated to pursue that goal (Zimmerman et al., 2018) and they are more likely to perform
better (Çetin & Aşkun, 2018). Furthermore, the benefits of self-efficacy extend beyond the
individual. Self-efficacious employees are more inclined to contribute to the effectiveness of
their organization and more likely to believe they can form strong relationships with others
therein (Borgogni et al., 2011).
If administrative staff are to demonstrate civility in the workplace, they must be
motivated to do so. One component of motivation that is assumed to be relevant in the current
study is self-efficacy. That is, if administrative staff feel that they can behave civilly, they are
more likely to do so. Although there is no research specifically demonstrating the impact of self-
efficacy on civil behavior, Kirk et al. (2009) found an indirect negative correlation between self-
efficacy and incivility. They surveyed Australian employees across a range of organizations to
assess them on several dimensions: self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, positive and negative
47

affect, and workplace incivility. They found that participants with low self-efficacy demonstrated
less emotional intelligence and were more likely to report experiencing low levels of positive
affect and high levels of negative affect. Low levels of positive affect and high levels of negative
affect were, in turn, associated with an increased likelihood of perpetrating workplace incivility.
If low self-efficacy is predictive of an employee’s tendency to behave uncivilly, it is reasonable
to propose that high self-efficacy is predictive of an administrative staff member’s willingness
and ability to demonstrate civility in the workplace.
Administrative Staff Need to See Others Around Them Modeling Civil Behavior in Order to
Be Motivated to Demonstrate Civility Themselves
Social cognitive theory (SCT) offers a causal explanation of human behavior in which
personal factors, behavior, and the environment all interact reciprocally (Bandura, 1988). With
respect to the first two components of this reciprocity triad—personal factors and behavior—
SCT proposes that people have agency and control over their lives; people are intentional, they
are forward-thinking, and they self-regulate (Bandura, 2005). A cornerstone of SCT is social
modeling, which is the act of learning vicariously from others in the environment (Bandura,
1988). Once an individual observes a desired behavior being modeled, they can enact it
themselves; and if they are given feedback about how their enactment of the behavior differs
from that of the model, they can become more proficient (Bandura, 2005). In addition to this
instructional influence, modeling has a motivational influence on behavior. If an individual sees
others being rewarded for behaving in a desirable way and being punished for behaving in an
undesirable way, that individual will be motivated to modify their own behavior accordingly
(Bandura, 2004).
48

In line with the principles of SCT, if administrative staff are shown examples of civil
behavior being modeled and rewarded in their environment, it is assumed that they will be
motivated to demonstrate civil behavior themselves. Support for this assumption comes from the
findings of Taylor and Pattie (2014), who studied ethical leadership and workplace incivility
among teachers and staff within an American public school district. They asked participants to
assess how often their supervisors modeled several ethical behaviors. These behaviors included
listening to the opinions of employees, considering employees’ best interests, and making fair
and balanced decisions. The list of ethical behaviors also included disciplining employees who
violate ethical standards. In addition, Taylor and Pattie (2014) asked participants to assess their
own propensity to engage in the seven uncivil workplace behaviors listed on Cortina et al.’s
(2001) Workplace Incivility Scale. The scholars found that employees who saw their supervisors
modeling ethical behavior and disciplining those who did not behave ethically were significantly
less likely to engage in uncivil behaviors than those who did not see their supervisors behaving
in this way.
In a similar demonstration of the potency of modeling, Foulk et al. (2016) explored the
relationship between observing behavior and engaging in that same behavior among American
university students. Participants engaged in a series of 11 bilateral negotiation exercises with
their classmates, and after each exercise, the authors interviewed everyone involved. They found
that if a participant experienced rudeness in a negotiation, they were more likely to be rude
themselves in subsequent interactions.
In summary, if an employee observes desirable behavior in the workplace, they are more
likely to engage in desirable behavior themselves. Conversely, if an employee observes
undesirable behavior in the workplace, they are more likely to behave undesirably. This pair of
49

implications supports the assumption that administrative staff will be more motivated to
demonstrate civility if they see civility being modeled in their occupational environment.
Administrative Staff Need to Value Civility as a Component of Their Success at Work
Expectancy value theory (EVT) posits that people’s motivation to succeed at a task is a
function of how they think they will perform on the task and how much they value the task
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Task value consists of four components: intrinsic value, utility value,
attainment value, and cost (Pintrich, 2003). Intrinsic value refers to an individual’s personal
enjoyment of the task. Utility value represents how useful a task is with respect to the
individual’s plans and goals. Attainment value refers to how much importance the individual
places on succeeding at the task. Finally, cost represents the negative consequences that the
individual experiences because of engaging in the task (Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). Utility value is the EVT construct that is most pertinent to the current study. Research has
shown that the more people value the utility of a task, the better they will perform on that task
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Moreover, actively encouraging individuals to reflect on how useful
a task is to them increases their performance on the task (Harackiewicz et al., 2016).
Given the positive impact of utility value on performance as discussed above, it is
reasonable to assume that administrative staff will be more likely to demonstrate civility at work
if they see how doing so will help them be successful in their roles. In the successful three-part
educational intervention that Lasater et al. (2015) conducted with nursing staff, an important
focus of the first part was educating staff about the impact of incivility on their health, on the
safety of patients, and on the quality of the care they provided. Although the intervention was not
explicitly based upon EVT, encouraging staff to consider the impact of incivility on their work is
tantamount to highlighting the utility value of demonstrating civility. That is, if staff can be
50

persuaded in a civility intervention that behaving civilly will have a beneficial effect on their
success at work, they are more likely to end up demonstrating civility in the workplace.
Similar support for the importance of utility value in motivating civil behavior comes
from Osatuke et al.’s (2009) implementation of the CREW intervention across the VHA. The
intervention successfully reduced levels of perceived workplace incivility throughout the
organization and the authors recognized that this improvement was founded on two factors that
both exemplify utility value. First, participants became more consciously aware of the
importance of behaving civilly at work. Second, participants came to appreciate the pivotal role
played by workplace civility in their ability to execute the VHA mission successfully.
Furthermore, in qualitative data gathered after the intervention, participants and facilitators
offered unprompted comments about the connection between civility and the successful
outcomes of specific tasks. In conclusion, if administrative staff are educated about the benefits
of civility with respect to their own work, they are more likely to demonstrate civility in the
workplace.
Administrative Staff Need to Experience Positive Emotions if They Are to Demonstrate Civility
Pekrun (2018) calls emotions that are tied to achievement activities or outcomes
“achievement emotions” (p. 251). Achievement emotions can be categorized according to three
dimensions: the object on which they are focused (the future outcome of an activity, the past
outcome of an activity, or the activity itself); the extent to which they physiologically activate the
person experiencing them (activating or deactivating); and their valence (positive or negative)
(Pekrun, 2018). While positive activating emotions, such as task enjoyment or happiness about
the outcome of a task, tend to have a beneficial effect on performance, negative activating
emotions, such as anger and anxiety, and negative deactivating emotions, such as sadness and
51

disappointment, tend to have a detrimental effect on performance (Pekrun, 2018). As Clark and
Estes (2008) have observed, if an organization helps its employees maintain positive emotions,
those employees are more likely to be committed to their work.
In accordance with Pekrun’s (2018) assertion that positive activating emotions tend to
improve performance and negative emotions of all kinds tend to diminish performance, it is
assumed that administrative staff who experience positive activating emotions will be more
inclined to demonstrate civility in the workplace. Although none of the civility intervention
studies found in the literature make explicit reference to the effect of emotions on employees’
motivation to demonstrate civility, two studies reviewed have shown that negative emotions can
increase the likelihood of a person behaving uncivilly. In their study of American employees in a
range of industries, Meier and Semmer (2013) found that employees who experienced anger
because of feeling let down by their organizations were more likely to instigate incivility. Walker
et al. (2014) considered negative emotions more generally when they explored how experiencing
incivility from customers affected an employee’s likelihood of behaving uncivilly. They found
that employees who were high in negative affectivity, which is the tendency to experience
negative emotions and to be reactive, were more likely to respond uncivilly when treated
uncivilly by a customer.
In summary, given that experiencing negative emotions is associated with a greater
likelihood of instigating incivility, it is reasonable to assume that fostering positive emotions
among administrative staff will result in them demonstrating greater civility. Table 3 presents the
four influences that are assumed to affect the motivation of administrative staff to demonstrate
civility in the workplace. Each influence is associated with a different motivation construct.

52

Table 3
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Motivation influence
Self-efficacy Administrative staff need to believe in their ability to demonstrate
civility in the workplace.
Social modeling Administrative staff need to see others around them modeling civil
behavior in order to be motivated to demonstrate civility
themselves.
Utility value Administrative staff need to value civility as a component of their
success at work.
Achievement emotions Administrative staff need to experience positive emotions if they
are to demonstrate civility.

Organizational Influences
Knowledge and motivation influences are not the only determinants of how stakeholders
in an organization perform and whether they achieve their goals. Clark and Estes (2008) propose
that factors relating to the organization itself, rather than to the individual, are also instrumental
in this regard. These factors can be thought of collectively as the organization’s culture, which
Schein (2017) refers to as “shared learning experiences that lead, in turn, to shared, taken-for-
granted basic assumptions held by the members of the … organization” (p. 22). The culture of
the organization acts as the backdrop against which all employees work together to perform their
duties, and aspects of this culture can impact to what extent employees are successful in doing so
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
For the purposes of clearly delineating the organizational influences that are assumed to
impact the civility of higher education administrative staff, it is helpful to adopt Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) distinction between cultural models and cultural settings. A cultural model
refers to the set of values and beliefs that a community shares about how the world works or
53

should work. By contrast, a cultural setting is a specific occasion when members of a community
come together to collaborate on something they value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The
remainder of this section will describe two cultural models and two cultural settings that have an
influence on employee behavior. The first cultural model is the organization’s commitment to
demonstrating and fostering workplace civility from the top down. The second cultural model is
the organization’s commitment to improving people’s trust and psychological safety. The first
cultural setting is the training in coping strategies that an institution’s administrative staff need in
order to mitigate the negative effects incivility has on them. The second cultural setting is the
organizational process by which administrative staff can discuss civility in their workgroups.
Cultural Model: Higher Education Institutions Need to Foster a Civil Working Environment
If administrative staff are to contribute to the improvement of civility within their
institution, leadership needs to show a commitment to fostering civil behavior across the
organization. In designing the successful CREW intervention for implementation across the
VHA, Osatuke et al. (2009) acknowledged that the promotion of civility was something that had
to be initiated at the organizational level. This is because instances of civil and uncivil behavior
do not occur in isolation; rather, they are interactive processes that are tied to the context of the
organization or workgroup. Accordingly, the wide-ranging success of CREW can be attributed in
part to the fact that implementation of the intervention across 46 workgroups and 28 facilities
was endorsed by the VHA National Leadership Board that oversees the VHA (Osatuke et al.,
2009). Similarly, after conducting civility workshops throughout NYSU’s Empire State College,
Gedro and Wang (2013) concluded that organizational support is essential for the success of a
civility initiative. In this case, the scholars sought the approval of the college senate and included
multiple stakeholders in the development of their intervention plan.
54

Further support for the importance of an organization-wide approach to improving
civility comes from the two studies reviewed earlier that focus on the development of civility
norms (Spence Laschinger & Read, 2016; Walsh et al., 2012). Both studies illustrated that when
norms for civility are promoted in work groups and organizations, workplace incivility is
reduced. In accordance with these findings, higher education institutions need to develop norms
for civil behavior and promulgate these among their employees.
Cultural Model: Higher Education Institutions Need to Foster a Culture of Trust and
Psychological Safety in Order to Lay the Groundwork for a Civil Working Environment
Organizational trust has been defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as “the willingness of a
party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or
control that other party” (p. 712). If higher education institutions are to successfully motivate
their employees to improve workplace civility, their employees need to trust leadership.
Although no research has been found that links employees’ trust in leadership to workplace
civility specifically, there are studies that demonstrate other, similar organizational benefits of
trust. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) performed a meta-analysis of studies of trust in leadership that had
been conducted over the previous four decades. Across over 100 such studies, they found that
trust in leadership was significantly related to the following behaviors in employees: altruism,
civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy, and sportsmanship. More recently, Kelloway et al.
(2012) surveyed fieldworkers in a large Canadian telecommunications company and found that
their trust in leadership was predictive of their wellbeing. Because of these cultural benefits that
accrue from employees trusting their leaders, it seems reasonable to suggest that improving
employees’ trust in leadership will contribute to the creation of a more civil workplace.
55

Another feature of the cultural environment that likely impacts workplace civility is
psychological safety. Edmonson and Lei (2014) have defined psychological safety as “describing
perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context such as a
workplace” (p. 24). It is assumed that if employees experience psychological safety at work, they
are more likely to be motivated to behave civilly. Just as there is no research showing the impact
of organizational trust on workplace civility, there is no research that specifically explores how
psychological safety affects it. However, studies have shown that psychological safety has
beneficial effects that may well be conducive to the creation and maintenance of a civil working
environment. Employees who experience psychological safety are more likely to speak up both
about their work concerns and about ways of improving work processes and practices (Burris et
al., 2008; Liang et al., 2012). This finding suggests that psychological safety might encourage
administrative staff in higher education institutions to be more actively involved in helping to
reduce incivility and increase civility.
Cultural Setting: Higher Education Institutions Need to Provide Resources, Support, and
Training for Administrative Staff to Manage and Cope With the Impacts of an Uncivil Work
Environment
Research cited earlier in this chapter has shown that there are various factors that can
mitigate the negative effects of experiencing incivility. First, employees who are more
emotionally intelligent are less likely to feel dissatisfied at work when they are treated uncivilly
(Chen & Wang, 2019). Second, employees who engage in mindfulness behaviors, such as
increasing self-awareness, being less judgmental, and describing thought patterns, experience
less stress and more forgiveness in response to incivility than employees who do not engage in
56

such behaviors (Tarraf et al., 2019). Third, employees who feel supported by their coworkers
experience less anxiety and depression in response to uncivil encounters (Geldart et al., 2015).
The above findings suggest that if administrative staff are offered training in the areas of
emotional intelligence, mindfulness, and empathy, they will likely become more resilient in the
face of incivility and more able to help their colleagues develop this resilience. In mitigating the
negative effects of incivility, it is likely that training administrative staff in these areas will also
help reduce the occurrence of incivility in the organization. Numerous studies have shown that
experiencing incivility is a strong predictor of instigating it (Foulk et al., 2016; Loh & Loi, 2018;
Torkelson et al., 2016; Van Jaarsfeld et al., 2010). If administrative staff are given the tools to
reduce the negative impact that incivility has on them, it is reasonable to suggest that they will be
less likely to behave uncivilly themselves.
Cultural Setting: Higher Education Institutions Need to Offer Administrative Staff Regular
Opportunities to Discuss Civility in Their Workgroups
In addition to training administrative staff in how to cope with incivility, higher education
institutions need to offer them the time and professional assistance to discuss civility within their
workgroups. In the CREW intervention that they successfully implemented across the VHA,
Osatuke et al. (2009) identified weekly, workgroup-level discussions about civility as the
primary driver of civility improvement within the organization. These discussions allowed staff
to participate in and feel ownership of the process of civility improvement by allowing them to
develop civility norms within their workgroups. The discussions were overseen by trained
facilitators whose job was not to teach staff or encourage them to behave in a certain way.
Rather, their job was to inspire conversation and support staff in developing and defining their
own understanding and approach to civility. The authors saw this participative process as being
57

more important than any specific intervention ingredient in changing the civility culture at the
VHA (Osatuke et al., 2009). Leiter et al. (2011) validated the importance of participant
ownership in the process of addressing organizational civility. They acknowledged that when
externally designed cultural processes are imposed on groups, group members can resist change
and become even more set in their maladaptive behaviors. For this reason, they felt it important
to give participants agency in the civility improvement process.
In line with the findings just discussed, higher education institutions need to provide
administrative staff with the time and facilitation assistance to have regular discussions about
civility in their workgroups. It is assumed that enabling these discussions would increase
people’s participation, agency, and ownership with respect to the process of civility improvement
within their institutions. Table 4 presents the four organizational influences that are assumed to
affect workplace civility in higher education institutions. Each influence is categorized as either a
cultural model or a cultural setting.

58

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational influence category Organizational influences
Cultural model influence Higher education institutions need to foster a civil
working environment.
Cultural model influence Higher education institutions need to foster a culture of
psychological safety and trust in order to lay the
groundwork for a civil working environment.
Cultural setting influence Higher education institutions need to provide
resources, support, and training for administrative staff
to manage and cope with the impacts of an uncivil
work environment.
Cultural setting influence Higher education institutions need to offer
administrative staff regular opportunities to discuss
civility in their workgroups.

Conceptual Framework: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on
Workplace Civility and Incivility
A conceptual framework is a model that describes the constructs explored in a study and
the relationships between them (Maxwell, 2013). It is an important component of a qualitative
study because it helps the researcher in the task of designing the study. A conceptual framework
guides the development of research goals, the definition of research questions, and the choice of
research methods (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework used in the current study is based
on Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis methodology. The framework captures the assumption
that knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences have an impact on workplace
incivility, on workplace civility, and on the design of any program that seeks to drive employees
towards demonstrating less of the former and more of the latter. The conceptual framework is
depicted in Figure 1.
59

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

The gray box on the left-hand side of the diagram contains the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences that are assumed to be pertinent to an exploration of workplace
incivility and workplace civility in a higher education institution. These influences were
discussed in detail earlier in this chapter. The bidirectional arrows that connect each type of
influence indicate that these influences do not necessarily exert an effect independently; on the
contrary, they have the potential to interact with each other. For example, the first knowledge
influence reflects the importance of staff understanding what constitutes workplace incivility and
civility. As Osatuke et al. (2009) noted when they developed their CREW intervention, an
60

effective way of fostering this knowledge among employees is to give them a forum in which to
discuss incivility and to take ownership over the process of defining it and understanding it.
Accordingly, this knowledge influence would seem to interact with the second cultural setting
influence, namely the need for higher education institutions to offer staff regular opportunities to
discuss civility in their workgroups.
The right-hand side of the diagram depicts the civility performance gap as a relationship
between workplace incivility and workplace civility that is mediated by a civility program. The
red circle represents the current state of higher education institutions, which is characterized by
workplace incivility. The green circle represents the desired state of such institutions, which is a
state of workplace civility. The blue rectangle represents a civility program, which will close the
gap between the two states.
There are three arrows that connect the KMO influences on the left-side of the diagram
with the three constructs on the right-hand side. The top arrow indicates that one or more of the
assumed KMO influences have an impact on workplace incivility. Similarly, the bottom arrow
indicates that one or more of the assumed KMO influences have an impact on civility. The
middle arrow illustrates that all these KMO influences should be considered when designing a
civility program for use in higher education institutions.
Summary
This literature review provided background research for the current study, which
explored workplace incivility in higher education and designed a civility program for use in the
field. The first part of the review focused on literature in the workplace incivility research
domain. It began by considering how workplace incivility has been defined, how it has been
treated as distinct from various other forms of undesirable workplace behavior, and how it has
61

been measured by researchers. The review then briefly discussed workplace civility as the
conceptual counterpoint to workplace incivility. This was followed by an exploration of the
negative outcomes of experiencing incivility and of witnessing incivility. The review continued
with a presentation of the factors that researchers have found to be predictive of experiencing
incivility and of instigating incivility. The review then explored how individuals and
organizations can mitigate and reduce incivility. This was followed by a detailed examination of
two successful civility interventions. This part of the review concluded with a consideration of
two qualitative studies of workplace incivility that have been conducted in the higher education
domain.
The second part of the literature review described Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework and listed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that are assumed
to be pertinent to the improvement of civility in higher education institutions. Knowledge
influences included knowledge about workplace incivility and workplace civility, knowledge
about the negative consequences of workplace incivility, and knowledge of how to increase self-
awareness about workplace behavior. Motivation influences included self-efficacy in
demonstrating civility, the modeling of civil behavior, the utility value of civility, and positive
achievement emotions. Organizational influences included fostering a civil working
environment, improving trust and psychological safety, providing administrative staff with
training in how to cope with incivility, and offering administrative staff regular opportunities to
discuss civility. The chapter concluded with a presentation of a conceptual framework that
illustrates how these influences are assumed to impact workplace incivility, workplace civility,
and the development of a workplace civility program. Chapter 3 will describe the methodology
62

that was used to explore how these assumed KMO influences manifested themselves within
higher education institutions in practice and how they informed the design of a civility program.

63

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study addressed the problem of workplace incivility in higher education
environments. More specifically, it aimed to design an initiative that increases civility and
decreases incivility as experienced by administrative staff in higher education institutions. This
chapter will present the design of the research study. It will describe the stakeholders who
participated in the study and the sampling approach used to engage them. The chapter will
continue with a discussion of how data was collected and analyzed. It will then consider the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the
ethical foundation on which the study was designed.
Research Questions
The three research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, and motivation needs that must be considered when
designing an initiative that decreases workplace incivility and increases workplace
civility for administrative staff in higher education institutions?
2. How do organizational culture and context support or hinder workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher education institutions?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources that can drive the design of a program
that increases workplace civility and decreases workplace incivility experienced by
administrative staff at higher education institutions?

64

Overview of Methodology
This study was based on a qualitative design. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
qualitative research is focused on how individuals experience the world and how they construct
meaning from this lived experience. A qualitative design was appropriate for this study because
it allowed for the exploration of how people experience incivility in higher education
workplaces, what meaning they attach to it, and what might help them increase civility within
their institutions.
More specifically, this study was phenomenological in nature. A phenomenological
approach to qualitative inquiry assumes that there is a fundamental essence underlying the
phenomenon of interest that can be understood by analyzing and comparing people’s individual
experiences of it (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Phenomenology was a suitable lens for
investigating incivility in higher education because it allowed for a deep understanding of
people’s experiences of incivility and a nuanced appreciation of the KMO factors that lie behind
uncivil and civil behavior. Exploring the problem of incivility qualitatively and
phenomenologically created a solid platform on which to design an effective program aimed at
addressing the problem.
Participating Stakeholders
The participants in this study were administrative staff at universities and they were
recruited using purposive sampling. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the idea of
purposive sampling is to engage those people from whom most can be learned. This study, which
focuses on civility and incivility within higher education institutions, assumed that most could be
learned from the administrative staff who support faculty, students, and other stakeholders within
universities.
65

Administrative staff were sampled using the two criteria below:
1. Administrative staff who work at a U.S. university.
2. Administrative staff who have worked at their current institution for at least three years
so that they have a significant body of experience from which to draw.
Participants were identified through an exploration of suitable candidates via the
researcher’s LinkedIn network, which included approximately 200 administrative staff from
universities around the country. All candidates were contacted via LinkedIn message and invited
to participate, with the goal of saturation. In all, fourteen people agreed to participate. However,
two of these candidates did not technically meet the sampling criteria above and this did not
become apparent until the interviews. One participant was a faculty member performing an
administrative role and the other participant had worked in higher education for many years but
had only been at their current institution for six months. Consequently, these two interviews were
excluded from the analysis stage of the study.
Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan
The method of data collection used in this study was semi-structured interviewing.
Interview Protocol
In the semi-structured interviewing approach, the interview protocol contains a list of
questions, but the order in which the questions are asked and the exact wording that is used are
both flexible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, semi-structured interviews offer the
researcher latitude to deviate from the protocol if answers from the interviewee suggest new
directions to explore. This fluidity allows the researcher to stay closely attuned to the interviewee
and their worldview, and to respond to the interview environment in an agile way as it evolves
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
66

The interview protocol used in this study is provided in Appendix A. The questions for
the protocol were designed in accordance with Patton’s (2002) question typology. According to
Patton (2002), there are six types of questions. Experience and behavior questions relate to a
person’s past and present actions. Opinion and values questions are concerned with
understanding people’s interpretations and judgments. Feeling questions explore the emotions
people experience. Knowledge questions relate to what people know and understand. Sensory
questions ask people how they experience the world through sight, hearing, touch, taste, and
smell. Finally, background/demographic questions explore a person’s life circumstances and
characteristics such as age, occupation, and education (Patton, 2002).
The questions in this study were of three types: background/demographic; experience and
behavior; and opinion and value. Background/demographic questions were used to elicit the
participant’s role and establish it within the context of their organization. This helped define the
scope of the study. Knowledge questions were used to assess people’s understanding of incivility
and civility, and of how uncivil behavior can impact others. These were the knowledge
influences that are assumed to affect a person’s likelihood of behaving civilly. Experience and
behavior questions invited participants to consider how they and their colleagues behave towards
each other in the workplace, and to reflect on the antecedents and consequences of that behavior.
These questions shed light on the motivation influences that are assumed to drive civil behavior.
Finally, opinion and value questions explored what role the participant’s organization plays or
should play in addressing incivility. These questions covered the organizational influences that
are assumed to play a role in the successful implementation of a civility initiative. Appendix D
contains a table that lists the interview questions and, for each question, indicates which research
questions and assumed KMO influences the question addressed.
67

Although the interview protocol contained a fixed set of initial questions that bounded the
interview, follow-up questions and probes were used where necessary to explore participants’
knowledge, opinions, and experiences in greater depth.
Interview Procedures
The interviews for this study were conducted in February and March of 2021.
Participants were recruited via LinkedIn. Each candidate was sent a LinkedIn message inviting
them to participate (see Message 1 in Appendix B). If a person agreed to participate, they were
sent a confirmation email (see Message 2 in Appendix B). This message was accompanied by an
information sheet for exempt research (see Appendix C).
Interviews lasted up to an hour and were conducted via the Zoom video conferencing
platform (www.zoom.us). The primary rationale for interviewing participants via Zoom was a
practical one. During the first half of 2021, physical distancing measures were in place across
much of the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented in-person meetings. One
of the benefits of using Zoom was that most people were familiar with the platform because they
had been required to use it by their institutions. Another benefit of conducting interviews online
in this way was convenience. It is logistically much simpler to set up a one-hour Zoom video
conference than it is to set up an equivalent in-person meeting. Finally, online interviewing
allows for a much broader geographical reach. In-person interviews would practically have been
limited to Californian universities; Zoom allowed for the involvement of participants from
institutions anywhere in the country.
At the beginning of each interview, the participant was reminded of the confidentiality
and privacy measures that had been put in place. In addition, the participant’s permission to
68

record the interview was confirmed. The participant was then given an overview of how the
questioning would proceed.
Zoom includes a recording capability that was used to capture the audio and video of
each interview. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that the practice of recording interviews is
beneficial because it ensures that everything said in the interview is captured for subsequent
analysis. Although Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also point out that recording an interview can
make the interviewee uncomfortable, staff in higher education environments are now used to
attending numerous meetings each day via Zoom, some of which are recorded. Accordingly,
none of the participants in the study expressed any discomfort with the recording process.
During each interview, a note-taking app on the researcher’s computer was used to
capture notes. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state, taking notes during an interview that is being
recorded allows researchers to capture their reactions to what the interviewee says. In addition,
taking notes enables the researcher to record potential follow-up questions and probes, and to
record any important analytical reflections that occur during the interview.
After each interview was complete, the participant was thanked and asked if they could
be contacted later to review the study’s findings. The participant was then invited to ask any
questions. After the Zoom meeting ended, the participant was sent a thank you email (see
Message 3 in Appendix B).
Data Analysis
Once each Zoom recording was complete, it was transcribed using a service called Rev
(www.rev.com). Rev allows an audio or video recording to be uploaded securely to the Rev
servers, at which point staff transcribe the recording and then make the transcript available for
download in various file formats. Rev takes confidentiality and data privacy very seriously. All
69

staff are required to sign non-disclosure agreements and users of the service maintain full control
of the data they upload. Once a recording was transcribed, the transcript was downloaded, and
the recording deleted from the Rev servers. The recording was then also deleted from the
researcher’s computer.
The analysis of the transcribed data followed Cresswell and Cresswell’s (2018)
recommended process. This process consists of five steps: preparing the data for analysis;
reading all the data; coding the data; identifying themes; and interpreting the findings (Cresswell
& Cresswell, 2018). In the case of this study, preparing the data for analysis involved producing
the written transcripts of the interviews as described above and combining the transcripts with
notes made during the interviews. Reading all the data entailed reading through all the transcripts
and notes to get a general understanding of the material. The data was then coded using the
ATLAS.ti qualitative analysis software application (version 9). The eleven assumed KMO
influences described in Chapter 2 were used as a priori codes during the analysis and other codes
were created as needed, in line with the concept-driven coding approach described by Gibbs and
Flick (2018). The coded data then formed the basis for a narrative account of the study’s
findings. Chapter 4 will be devoted to this narrative. Chapter 5 will then use the findings in
conjunction with literature to generate recommendations for the design, implementation, and
evaluation of a civility initiative.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the trustworthiness of a qualitative study can
be determined by assessing its credibility and its consistency. Credibility refers to how believable
a study’s findings are, whereas consistency is an indicator of to what extent those findings make
70

sense given the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Various strategies were employed to
maximize these two elements of trustworthiness, and each element is considered in turn below.
To maximize the study’s credibility, two strategies were used. The first of these is what
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) call reflexivity. A researcher’s biases and assumptions can impact
the process of interpreting qualitative data. Although it is not possible for people to eliminate
their biases and assumptions, their impact on data interpretation can be mitigated if the
researcher identifies and explains them. Doing so gives readers of a study a richer understanding
of why the researcher reached the conclusions they did. The second strategy for enhancing the
credibility of the study was the use of “rich, thick description” (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018, p.
315) when writing up the findings. The more detail and nuance that the researcher offers when
engaging with the reader, the richer and more realistic those findings will seem.
To maximize the consistency between the data gathered in this study and the findings
derived from those data, two strategies were used. The first is reflexivity and was discussed
above. By clarifying his biases and assumptions when writing up his findings, the researcher was
able to show a clearer path between the data and his interpretation of it. The second strategy that
was used to maximize consistency is what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) call an “audit trail” (p.
252). An audit trail is a detailed log of exactly what procedures and steps a researcher follows
during the process of analyzing data. Creating an audit trail is analogous to a student showing
their working when solving a math problem and not just providing the result. An audit trail was
created in ATLAS.ti when the data for the current study was analyzed.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
According to Cresswell and Cresswell (2018), there are numerous ethical issues to
consider when conducting research involving human participants. First, Institutional Review
71

Board (IRB) approval of the study is required before any participants can be interviewed. This
approval was received in January 2021. Second, the purpose of the study should be disclosed.
This was done via the information sheet that was shared with each participant before they were
interviewed (see Appendix C). Third, participants should be informed that their participation is
voluntary and that they can end the interview at any time. Participants were informed thus during
the introduction of the interview. Fourth, participants should not be exploited or made to feel so.
To mitigate this risk, participants were told that they would be sent a copy of the final
dissertation.
The last of Cresswell and Cresswell’s (2018) ethical issues that needs to be navigated is,
in the researcher’s opinion, the most important one. It is vital to protect the privacy of the
participants. To achieve this protection, all Zoom interviews were recorded to the researcher’s
laptop computer instead of to the cloud. Because the laptop in question was fully encrypted with
a 30-character passphrase, all recording files were impenetrable to anyone who tried to access
the laptop either in person or via the internet. After a recording was uploaded securely to the
privacy-focused Rev service and transcribed, the recording was deleted both from the Rev
website and from the encrypted laptop. The transcript alone was then stored on the laptop. In
addition, notes made during each interview were stored in encrypted form. All these measures
ensured that interview data remained private and confidential. When the data was analyzed and
written up, pseudonyms were used for the participants and the institutions they worked at were
not named. In addition, the full text of the dissertation was closely reviewed to ensure that it
contained no other information that would allow a reader to deduce the identity of the
participants.
72

The researcher is an administrative staff member at a business school within a university
who has experienced workplace incivility at various points during his career. On the one hand,
this helped him understand the experiences and opinions that were reported to him by the
university staff members he interviewed. On the other hand, because this was a field study
involving staff working at various institutions, every interviewee had their own unique
environment and set of circumstances. Accordingly, the researcher needed to ensure that his
assumptions and biases did not affect the gathering and analysis of data during the study. For
example, the researcher’s own experiences of incivility as a White man sometimes differed from
the experiences of women and people of color he interviewed. For this reason, special care had to
be taken to ensure that assumptions based on his own experiences of incivility did not affect how
participants were questioned or how their responses were interpreted. Similarly, the researcher
was aware of his unconscious biases that were based on his identity as a white man. As a result,
he needed to make himself consciously aware of these so that they did not impact the collection
and analysis of data. The strategy used to mitigate the potential impact of the researcher’s biases
and assumptions is called reflexivity and was described above in relation to maximizing the
credibility of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Summary
This chapter began with a review of the study’s three research questions and described
the study’s methodology. It then described the stakeholders who were recruited for the study and
outlined the sampling approach that was used. The chapter continued with a detailed examination
of the interview protocol and procedures that were employed, and it outlined the steps that were
involved in analyzing the data. The credibility and trustworthiness of the study were then
explored. The chapter concluded with a discussion of ethics and the role of the researcher.
73

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the problem of workplace incivility in higher
education environments and to design an innovative program that can be implemented to
increase civility in these environments. More specifically, through interviews with university
administrative staff, the study sought to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational
needs and influences that must be considered when designing such a civility program.
The three research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, and motivation needs of administrative staff that must
be considered when designing an initiative that decreases workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in higher education institutions?
2. How do organizational culture and context support or hinder workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher education institutions?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources that can drive the design of a program
that increases workplace civility and decreases workplace incivility experienced by
administrative staff at higher education institutions?
As discussed in Chapter 3, the design of the study was qualitative in nature. Data was
gathered through semi-structured interviews with administrative staff at a range of different
universities. These interviews gave staff members the opportunity to share their lived
experiences of workplace incivility and their perspectives on how civility can be increased in
higher education.
This chapter will begin by describing the stakeholders who participated in the study. It
will then present the results and findings of the study analyzed in accordance with the assumed
74

knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were identified in Chapter 2. The
chapter will conclude with a discussion of an additional theme that emerged during the data
analysis.
Participating Stakeholders
The 12 stakeholders who participated in this study were all administrative staff at
universities in the United States who had worked at their current institution for three or more
years. Institutions were private or public universities categorized geographically as existing in
the northeastern, midwestern, western or southern United States. The longevity of each
participant’s tenure at their current institution was established via their LinkedIn public profile.
Interviews were conducted via the Zoom video conferencing platform over a three-week period
in February and March 2021. Interviews ranged in length from 40 minutes to 61 minutes, with
the average length being 47 minutes. Table 5 lists the type of institution, department, longevity,
and interview length for each participant. All participants were assigned pseudonyms that will be
used to refer to them throughout the remainder of this dissertation.

75

Table 5
Participating Stakeholder Summary
Participant Institution Department Longevity Interview length
Anthony Private university in
Western U.S.
Business 4y 1m 54 minutes
Bianca Private university in
Western U.S.
Human
resources
3y 3m 44 minutes
Carlton Private university in
Northeastern U.S.
Nursing 10y 10m 43 minutes
Dana Private university in
Western U.S.
Arts 5y 8m 61 minutes
Ella Public university in
Midwestern U.S.
Medicine 6y 0m 49 minutes
Femi Private university in
Southern U.S.
Student affairs 18y 0m 41 minutes
Gabriela Private university in
Northeastern U.S.
Arts 14y 7m 42 minutes
Helen Private university in
Northeastern U.S.
Student affairs 10y 2m 56 minutes
Idris Private university in
Western U.S.
Information
technology
12y 8m 43 minutes
Julia Private university in
Western U.S.
Academic
services
8y 0m 40 minutes
Kea Private university in
Western U.S.
Music 14y 9m 50 minutes
Lexi Public University in
Western U.S.
Business 17y 6m 46 minutes

76

Determining Needs and Assets
The 11 assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that were
identified in the literature review in Chapter 2 as being pivotal prerequisites for increasing
civility in higher education working environments were assessed for each participant during the
analysis of the interview data. When considered across all 12 participants, each influence was
determined to be either a need or an asset. An influence was classified as a need if the majority
(more than six) of the administrative staff indicated a shortcoming in the associated knowledge,
motivation, or organizational factor. An influence was classified as an asset if the majority (more
than six) of the administrative staff exhibited no evidence of there being any kind of shortfall in
the associated knowledge, motivation, or organizational factor. Those influences classified as
needs form the basis of the recommendations presented in Chapter 5 for the design and
implementation of a civility program for higher education institutions.
Findings for Knowledge Influences
In Chapter 2, three assumed knowledge influences were identified as contributing to the
ability of administrative staff in higher education environments to maximize civility in their
workplaces: their understanding of what constitutes workplace incivility and workplace civility;
their understanding of how workplace incivility can negatively affect people; and their
knowledge of and ability to reflect on their own uncivil and civil behavior. Table 6 lists each
assumed knowledge influence and indicates whether analysis of the interview data revealed the
influence to be a need or an asset.

77

Table 6
Assessment of Knowledge Influences as Needs or Assets
Knowledge Influence Need Asset
Administrative staff need to understand what constitutes
workplace incivility and workplace civility. [K-C-1]
X
Administrative staff need to understand the negative impact
of workplace incivility. [K-C-2]
X
Administrative staff need to know and be able to reflect on
their behaviors in order to maximize civility in the
workplace. [K-M-1]
X

Administrative Staff Need to Understand What Constitutes Workplace Incivility and
Workplace Civility (K-C-1, Asset)
In their landmark study of workplace incivility, Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined
the phenomenon as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in
violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (p. 457). By contrast, Andersson and Pearson
(1999) described workplace civility as “a behavior involving politeness and regard for others in
the workplace, within workplace norms for respect” (p. 454). Studies have shown that employees
need to understand what constitutes both uncivil and civil behavior if they are to contribute
towards the improvement of civility in their organizations (Reio & Ghosh, 2009; Osatuke et al.,
2009). Analysis of the interview data revealed that all 12 participants demonstrated an awareness
and an understanding of incivility and civility in their workplaces. The findings in this section
are grouped into categories, the first of which relates to how incivility can vary in intensity and
ambiguity.

78

Workplace Incivility on a Continuum
Incivility researchers (e.g., Porath, Foulk & Erez, 2015) have noted that uncivil behavior
exists on a continuum; it can be more or less intense and more or less ambiguous in its intent.
Idris made a similar observation when reflecting on his own workplace: “I think it could run the
gamut from someone being passive aggressive to someone deliberately personally attacking a
person to make them feel less than.” In this comment that was based on his own experiences
working in an IT department, Idris demonstrated an understanding that uncivil behavior can take
different forms. Several participants spoke about the low intensity, ambiguous form of incivility.
Workplace Incivility of Low Intensity and Ambiguous Intent
Femi gave a specific example of passive aggression that she once experienced from her
supervisor’s assistant:
On one occasion, I came into work at 8:15 and I was getting a call from the
administrative assistant asking me if I was on vacation because I wasn’t sitting at my
desk, knowing that my job… This person knows that my job is not 8:00 to 5:00. My job
is 24/7, 365 days a year. So, marking me for 15 minutes I think was too much and being
passive aggressive. They knew I wasn’t on vacation.
In sharing this anecdote, Femi showed an appreciation for how subtle and insidious workplace
incivility can be. Her colleague asked a superficially innocent question, but Femi viewed the
subtext of the question to be a disrespectful jab illustrating a lack of appreciation for the long
hours she puts in at work.
Another low-intensity way in which incivility manifests itself is through a lack of
validation or recognition. Several participants described experiencing incivility in this form. In
reflecting on how her supervisor does not pay much attention to the significant amount of effort
79

she puts into her assignments, Gabriela reported feeling incivility “as dissension or dismissal and
a lack of recognition of how substantive whatever it is I’m trying to bring to this person's
attention is.” Femi expressed a similar sentiment about being unheard and unvalidated by her
supervisor: “I feel that I have been disrespected more so in the sense of making me feel less than,
I guess, and making me feel like your thoughts, your ideas, your opinions are not validated.”
Lexi reported experiencing this lack of recognition at the role level by various people in her
organization: “I do often feel slighted or that my role is less than.” These three comments
demonstrate an appreciation that workplace incivility can take the form of a low-intensity
diminution of a person’s contributions to the organization. Incivility can also be more overt and
intense, as acknowledged by several interviewees.
Workplace Incivility of Greater Intensity
Carlton described a type of person who exemplifies the phenomenon. This person is
“potentially derogatory, demeaning, highly negative, is sending negative vibes through their
words” and is someone who “doesn’t want to be cordial and collaborative”. Even though Carlton
did not refer to a specific individual, this description felt firmly rooted in his experience with
various people throughout his career and indicated his familiarity with the notion of incivility.
The lack of cordiality and collaboration referenced by Carlton was on display in Julia’s account
of her experience when she first arrived at her institution:
And so, when I was coming in and I was learning my role and trying to figure out how to
navigate, not only obviously the culture there but what my roles and responsibility were,
the two of them would gang up on me and use sarcasm to make me feel like I didn’t
know what I was doing or make me feel lesser than them.
80

The incivility demonstrated by her two coworkers was so overt that it could be considered
workplace bullying (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003). Julia reported an even more extreme example of
overt incivility that targeted her ability to do her job. During a presentation she was giving to a
group of faculty, one of the faculty interrupted her presentation and “walked up to me and stuck
his finger in my face and yelled at me—and his dean was sitting right there—that I don’t know
what the hell I’m talking about.” As Julia’s vivid account of her experiences indicates, incivility
can be verbal. However, it can also be perpetrated through actions.
Workplace Incivility: Actions Versus Words
Anthony described at length how his supervisor micromanages him. His supervisor
ignores his suggestions, assigns him work that he then casts aside in favor of his own efforts, and
scrutinizes everything that Anthony does, despite Anthony’s many years of professional
experience. Anthony regarded this treatment as an embodiment of the disrespect that is the
hallmark of incivility: “I think not having faith or trust in a person’s capabilities—in their
professional capabilities—to execute the job and kind of hovering over a staff member’s
shoulder to me would indicate a form of disrespect.” Helen also discussed behaviors rather than
words when describing her understanding of incivility. However, the person in question was one
of her direct reports rather than her supervisor:
That person rarely comes to work on time, they don’t volunteer to take on additional
projects or programs, and they don’t volunteer to help at events that need an academic
advisor. They’re really not pulling their weight, and that’s another thing that I hear from
my staff, is that they feel like they’re having to take on more because this person is
unwilling to do anything.
81

Although this behavior can be considered insubordination, it can also be considered incivility
because of its ambiguous intent and because of the disrespect and disregard involved. While
participant comments related to this knowledge influence were focused primarily on the nature
of incivility, participants did also reflect on what they felt constituted civility.
Workplace Civility From an Interpersonal Perspective
For Ella, the cornerstone of civility is respect and recognition. Workplace civility
involves “treating others with respect, listening to people’s input, no matter what their status or
level, recognizing their areas of knowledge and expertise on the job, and tapping into that
knowledge and expertise as appropriate.” This view of civility was colored by Ella’s frequent
experiences of the opposite in her interactions with faculty at the medical school where she
works, in which her contributions are frequently minimized because of her status as a staff
member. This power differential between staff and faculty emerged as a common theme
discussed by interviewees and is addressed in detail later in this chapter. While Ella spoke about
civility from an interpersonal standpoint, other participants described it from an organizational
perspective.
Workplace Civility From an Organizational Perspective
Dana presented a broader, organizational view of civility by connecting it to many other
aspects of a positive workplace culture: “Workplace civility goes hand in hand with values like
integrity, ethics, open communication, respect, honesty, trust, connection, a lot of really basic
values that I uphold and model and support.” When she elaborated on this perspective, it became
clear how impactful she felt that the culture of the organization was on whether people are civil
to each other daily. Like Ella, she derived her understanding of incivility from its absence in her
work environment and from the disconnect between her personal values and the values currently
82

on display in her university. Anthony also considered civility to be closely related to
organizational culture: “It’s a culture of transparency. It’s a culture of honesty. It’s a culture of
celebration. And it’s a culture of support when things go bad. I think that’s what civil looks like.”
However, he derived his understanding of civility from the positive relationships he has with his
teammates rather than from the culture of the institution more broadly. It was clear from his
remarks that he relies on these positive relationships as a protective counterweight to the
incivility he experiences from his supervisor.
Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Understand What Constitutes
Workplace Incivility and Workplace Civility
In summary, all 12 of the administrative staff members interviewed in this study offered
detailed and nuanced understandings of workplace incivility and its counterpart, workplace
civility. As a result, understanding the nature of incivility and civility is considered to be an asset
that should be leveraged rather than a need that should be addressed in a program aimed at
increasing civility in higher education environments.
Administrative Staff Need to Understand the Negative Impact of Workplace Incivility (K-
C-2, Asset)
Chapter 2 described the various ways that experiencing workplace incivility can
negatively affect people. It can impact individuals emotionally (e.g., Porath & Pearson, 2012),
attitudinally (e.g., Welbourne et al., 2015), and behaviorally (e.g., Rahim & Cosby, 2016). In
addition, incivility can have knock-on effects on teams and organizations (e.g., Torkelson et al.,
2016). As was the case for the previous knowledge influence, all 12 participants demonstrated an
understanding of the negative impact of workplace incivility. In doing so, they offered a breadth
of perceptions and experiences that were consistent with the literature about these negative
83

effects. These perceptions and experiences are grouped into categories below. The first category
relates to the various ways in which incivility can emotionally impact those who experience it.
The Emotional Impact of Workplace Incivility
Gabriela reflected on how being treated uncivilly “puts me in a bad mood and makes me
frustrated.” Idris talked about how incivility makes him upset to the point where “I can feel my
blood pressure rising.” Ella reported that her reactions to incivility vary: “Sometimes I get mad.
Sometimes I get sad.” All three of these participants were able to tap into the negative emotions
they experienced when on the receiving end of uncivil treatment. For some people, the emotional
toll of experiencing incivility extends to mental health issues.
The Impact of Workplace Incivility on Mental Health
Helen recounted how she needed to begin seeing a therapist to deal with the anxiety of
having to have a performance conversation with an employee who was renowned for her
incivility:
I couldn’t sleep the night before because I was like, “I can’t believe I have to have this
conversation with her.” That is terrible for yourself to not be sleeping and to feel anxious
and so stressed out about having a conversation that otherwise would be a very simple
conversation.
Kea also shared how she needed to see a therapist because of the severe mental impact of being
immersed in an uncivil working environment. She became emotional when she said, “I went
through multiple instances of, how do I explain this? It was nervous breakdown.” Bianca, who
works in a human resources department, gave several examples of similar experiences reported
by administrative staff members at her university. One staff member suffered from “stress, lack
of sleep and had to go on medication for anxiety; every time she was worried that she’d miss a
84

phone call because this person didn’t want her leaving her desk.” In Dana’s case, the emotional
impact of incivility was so extreme that it affected her physically to the point where she was
hospitalized and had to take disability leave:
I am not a sickly person. I’m relatively healthy. I’ve never been hospitalized before. I
attribute that hospitalization to the toxic work environment that I had been a part of for
multiple years by that point. That’s one example of a tangible effect. I ended up going on
disability from work for a few weeks. I mean, I was very ill for multiple months.
In addition to affecting people’s emotional wellbeing and mental health, incivility can have a
negative impact beyond those who experience it directly (Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). Most
broadly, it can lead to a degradation in workplace culture.
The Impact of Workplace Incivility on Culture
Idris talked about uncivil interactions that have happened between clients of the IT
services he oversees and his team members, and he noted that just observing a problematic
encounter can result in others in the team feeling anxious:
But it does have an impact on everyone that’s around there, whether they are the intended
target or the bystander feeling this anxiety like, “Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this person
said that or is attacking this person,” or whatever… It makes everyone feel uncomfortable
and it’s not a good situation and it leads to toxic workplace issues.
Helen also acknowledged how uncivil interactions within her team can have a more general
negative effect on the workplace atmosphere and culture:
And so, it definitely creates a hostile work environment for, I think, the other members of
the team, actually. Not necessarily the ones who are having this tension, but the other
people who see this happening and are like, “What is going on?”
85

In addition to demonstrating an understanding of the effects of incivility on emotional wellbeing,
mental health, and workplace culture, participants spoke about the attitudinal impact it can have.
The Attitudinal Impact of Workplace Incivility
Low self-esteem and confidence were mentioned repeatedly as outcomes of being treated
disrespectfully. In reflecting on the passive aggressive “hazing” she received when she first
joined her organization, Julia noted, “It was very damaging to my self-esteem, thinking that
maybe I don’t know what I’m doing here, and maybe I shouldn’t be in this role.” Bianca spoke
of how constant remarks her supervisor made about her clothes affected her in a similar way:
My self-esteem suffered from it. I’d always be stressing about what I’m wearing, and I
ended up wearing clothes that I didn’t feel comfortable in where I could see my co-
worker wearing an outfit that I would’ve worn, so it was just mind-boggling why she
focused on something like that where she said I would do a great job, but then, just
criticizing how I looked or what I wore.
Even though Bianca was a star performer, her confidence in her role overall was diminished
because of regularly being criticized for her wardrobe choices. For Femi, her confidence
sustained a significant blow when her organization was restructured and she found herself
reporting to a supervisor who had previously micromanaged her and subjected her to daily
incivility: “When we got restructured under this person, I lost all my confidence completely. I
literally felt like I had to ask permission to go to the restroom.” While incivility can have a
negative impact on the confidence and self-esteem a person feels, it can also affect their
behavior.

86

The Behavioral Impact of Workplace Incivility
Several interviewees described reacting to uncivil treatment by withdrawing from both
people and the job. After a series of negative experiences with her supervisor and other leaders in
her university around their handling of her maternity leave, Julia described how she removed
herself from the workplace culture as much as she could: “I really try very hard to interact as
little as possible with as few people as possible.” Carlton talked generally about this kind of
withdrawal based on how he has seen other people respond to incivility in his organization: “I
think it affects people because they… I’m not going to use the right word. They don’t regress,
but they kind of hibernate and aren’t as outspoken as they might’ve been.”
Job withdrawal was also evident in people’s accounts of the impact of incivility. In
Anthony’s case, being treated uncivilly by his supervisor, in the form of micromanagement and
mistrust, led to him falling out of love with his job as an instructional designer and losing the
motivation to perform: “I love going above and beyond in the line of work that I do because it’s
enjoyable for me. I feel like once all of this happened it pulled me back and demotivated me
from that.” Dana, whose role in her department is to be the primary contact for students, felt the
need to continue offering her constituents the level of service to which they were accustomed,
even though she was bearing the strain of disrespect and disregard from her manager. However,
even though her students may not have noticed the difference, Dana knew she had stopped
giving 100%: “I think that my performance suffered. I still was high performing; I still was
highly functioning, but I knew my performance was suffering. And I was disengaged, and I was
less committed.”
87

Another behavioral impact of incivility that interviewees spoke about was their intended
or actual departure from their organization. The incivility that Helen consistently has to deal with
from one of her direct reports has caused her to start looking for other opportunities:
I actually have been applying to jobs over the last few weeks, mainly because the last
conversation I had with this person was so horrible. Even with working with a coach, it
was just a horrible conversation, and it makes me not want to work there.
Ella, having moved into academia after 25 years of work in the corporate world, has found the
incivility in her environment to be so unpalatable that she has considered changing industries
again: “I’ve thought of maybe just leaving academia altogether, which is a shame.” In some
cases, interviewees reported leaving previous positions because of incivility. Lexi reflected on
her time at another department within her current university and talked about the thought process
she went through prior to making the transition: “This environment is not what I want to be in,
and I’m going to pick a demotion and move to get away from it.” Lexi was so affected by the
incivility in her former department, that she elected to take a lower title and a pay cut to escape
it. Carlton also looked back at other jobs he had left in higher education because of being treated
uncivilly by supervisors: “So I’ve had supervisors who did not treat me the way I’d want to be
treated. And so, I ultimately left those after short stints.” Similarly, Bianca talked about how she
wanted to leave a former position to escape her supervisor’s persistent incivility, but she feared
her supervisor finding out: “I was afraid because my supervisor was also faculty, and well-
known faculty, an academic director, where I just didn’t want to rub her the wrong way.”
Fortunately for Bianca, she managed to overcome those fears and find a new job in the
institution.
88

Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Understand the Negative Impact of
Workplace Incivility
As the above account demonstrates, the study participants displayed a rich understanding
of the emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral effects of experiencing incivility in the workplace, in
addition to the impact that incivility can have on workplace culture. Because all 12
administrative staff interviewed clearly understood the negative impact of incivility, this
knowledge influence is considered to be an asset rather than a need.
Administrative Staff Need to Know and Be Able to Reflect on Their Behaviors in Order to
Maximize Civility in the Workplace (K-M-1, Asset)
As discussed in Chapter 2, self-awareness is an important prerequisite for behaving
civilly in the workplace (Khadjehturian, 2012; Osatuke et al., 2009). In line with the findings for
the previous two knowledge influences, all 12 interviewees demonstrated an ability to reflect on
their own behaviors. The findings for this influence are grouped into the categories, the first of
which relates to self-awareness in a broad sense.
General Self-Awareness
Idris considered his own role in interactions in the workplace and conveyed confidence in
his ability to monitor how he comes across, attributing it to his high level of EQ, or emotional
intelligence: “I mean, I think I have a very high EQ, so I’m very emotionally intelligent and
aware and I try to be very measured in my responses and how I react.” In Idris’s view, this self-
awareness allows him to behave civilly towards his colleagues. Ella demonstrated similar self-
awareness when she described how she approaches email communications with her colleagues:
“When I’m writing emails, I’m thinking to myself, ‘If I’m the recipient, how is this going to sit
with me?’ If I’m asking for something or whatever.” Ella monitors her own communication style
89

and puts herself in the shoes of the people who receive emails from her. In making these
remarks, Ella illustrated that she reflects on her own behavior and has self-awareness, which is
an important component of civil interactions. Like Ella, Julia reflected on how she tries to be
aware of her own approach to conversations as well as attuned to the feelings of her
interlocutors:
So, I try to choose carefully the words that I use to convey if we’re struggling to get our
numbers up or anything, just choosing carefully how to approach those situations and
having an awareness that the people that I’m working with have feelings. I’m a deep
empathizer and sometimes to my own detriment. So, I just try to put myself in that
position and talk to people how I would hope somebody would talk to me.
Julia pays careful attention to her words and engagement style. In addition, she empathizes
deeply with people to such an extent that she feels it can disadvantage her personally. While
several interviewees talked about being aware of their interpersonal awareness in general, others
described reflecting on interactions just after they had happened and then realizing that they had
themselves behaved uncivilly.
Post Hoc Reflection on Incivility
Bianca described a time when she sent one of her direct reports an email and immediately
recognized that it might not be received well:
I didn’t have the time or opportunity at that specific moment to get on a phone call or a
video with her, where I think it could come across differently and it would be more
productive as far as not taking anything defensively or fostering any type of negative
interaction, but at that moment, I could only just respond via email or text. I’d written it,
and I just kind of looked at it and I’m like, “Oh if I was on the receiving end of that, I
90

think I would take that the wrong way or realize that I’m upset.” So, I just had to just
pause, and just wait, and then actually just email and say, “Can we set up a time to talk?”
When Bianca reflected on what she had sent, she saw that there was the potential for it to be seen
negatively. To mitigate or repair any potential damage, she sent a follow-up email shortly
afterwards asking for a meeting with her supervisee. In this example, Bianca’s reflection led to
action that restored civility after what she saw as a temporary lapse into incivility. Carlton also
spoke about his own experiences of realizing after the fact that his role in an interaction had been
problematic: “I’ve probably been less delicate than I should be as an HR manager in challenging
times. And I’ve had to catch myself on that… And so, I think it is important to recognize when
you have oops moments and go back and just say sorry.” Carlton reflected on his behavior in
these moments, recognized that he had perhaps behaved uncivilly, and took active steps to undo
the harm that he may have caused. In contrast with those interviewees who described reflecting
on their behavior after a problematic interaction, other interviewees spoke about being aware of
their potential for incivility ahead of time.
Pre-Emptive Awareness of the Potential for Incivility
Idris talked about how he monitors his own emotional state and, if he feels that it is going
to have a negative impact on his engagement in a meeting, he either postpones the meeting or
explains how he is feeling to his fellow attendees at the outset to mitigate the risk of behaving
uncivilly:
So, there are times where I’m very aware of how I’m feeling or being impacted by what’s
going on around me or to me, I try to bring that into the conversation. So, if I’m having
an off day or I’m not of the right mind, I’ll move my meetings, if I can, or I’ll start the
91

meeting and say, “Just full disclosure, I’ve had a bit of bad news, personal news and so
just understand that that’s on my mind now and it’s weighing on me.”
Femi demonstrated similar self-awareness when she described the strategy she uses to minimize
the chance of events in her personal life negatively affecting her workplace interactions:
Before I enter the door in my office, I tap my foot three times and I tell myself, “Let it go.
None of these people behind this door had anything to do with your fight that you had
with your son or discussion you had with your husband. It’s none of their business and
it’s not their fault.” So that’s my reminder. And I literally, when I tap it, I open, and I feel
okay. I shake it off and I walk in with a smile on my face. I don’t think I do a good job
the opposite way from work to home.
Femi uses a physical gesture to mark her transition from her personal world into the world of
work. This helps her reflect on her emotional state and set it aside before she engages with her
colleagues. As a result, she can approach her colleagues positively and increase the probability
that her interactions with them will be civil. The final category relating to this influence that
arose during the interviews relates to intentionality.
Awareness of Impact Versus Intention
Based on their past experiences, both Lexi and Gabriela acknowledged the potential for
their behavior to be perceived as uncivil, even if they had not intended to come across that way.
This discrepancy between intention and perception lies at the heart of the “ambiguous intent to
harm” discussed by Andersson and Pearson (1999) in their definition of workplace incivility:
“Workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target,
in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (p. 457). Lexi reflected on the struggles she
experiences in staying on top of her email and responding to people in a timely fashion:
92

I’m not as aware as I like to think I am. Email’s a great example. I am horrible at email.
I’m horrible. I get so much of it. I’m horrible. I know it’s not a strength and I know that
that can cause people… I can impact what’s going on if I don’t get to email… None of us
think we’re really being intentionally uncivil I hope, but it’s likely that I am at times.
Lexi acknowledges that she prioritizes activities that have a more direct impact on her
department over responding to emails and that this lack of response can be perceived as uncivil.
By contrast, Gabriela talked about the tone of her communications: “I know that I’ve made many
mistakes where I thought I was being funny or breezy and it was just received the wrong way.”
Gabriela recognizes that there have been numerous situations in which there existed a gap
between how she intended to come across and how she was perceived by the person to whom she
was talking.
Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Know and Being Able to Reflect on
Their Behaviors in Order to Maximize Civility in the Workplace
As indicated in the examples above, the interviewees were accustomed to reflecting on
their behaviors and how those behaviors contributed to civility and incivility in the workplace.
Because all 12 interviewees demonstrated evidence of such reflection, this knowledge influence
is considered to be an asset rather than a need.
Summary of Findings for Knowledge Influences
Chapter 2 described three knowledge influences that are important prerequisites for
administrative staff to demonstrate civility in the workplace. Staff need to understand what
workplace incivility and workplace civility are; they need to understand the negative effects of
being treated uncivilly; and they need to reflect on their own behaviors and how those behaviors
impact the working environment. Analysis of the interview data revealed that all 12 participants
93

had a sophisticated appreciation of the nature of incivility and civility, and an awareness of the
various negative effects that experiencing incivility can entail. In addition, the analysis showed
that all participants were capable of reflecting on their own behavior in the workplace. The next
section presents findings from the analysis of the assumed motivation influences.
Findings for Motivation Influences
In Chapter 2, four assumed motivation influences were identified as contributing to the
ability of administrative staff in higher education environments to maximize civility in their
workplaces: their belief in their ability to demonstrate civility in the workplace; the opportunity
to see others around them modeling civil behavior; their belief that civility is a valuable
component of their success at work; and their experience of positive emotions. Table 7 lists each
assumed motivation influence and indicates whether analysis of the interview data revealed the
influence to be a need or an asset.

Table 7
Assessment of Motivation Influences as Needs or Assets
Motivation influence Need Asset
Administrative staff need to believe in their ability to
demonstrate civility in the workplace. [M-1]
X
Administrative staff need to see others around them
modeling civil behavior in order to be motivated to
demonstrate civility themselves. [M-2]
X
Administrative staff need to value civility as a component
of their success at work. [M-3]
X
Administrative staff need to experience positive emotions if
they are to demonstrate civility. [M-4]
X
94

Administrative Staff Need to Believe in Their Ability to Demonstrate Civility in the
Workplace (M-1, Asset)
As discussed in Chapter 2, it is assumed that staff need to experience self-efficacy with
respect to civility if they are to help increase civility in their workplaces. This assumption is
based upon research showing that the less self-efficacious a person feels, the more likely they are
to behave uncivilly (Kirk et al., 2009). Analysis of the interview data revealed that all 12
administrative staff who participated in the study believed they were capable of demonstrating
civility in the workplace and, indeed, behaved this way already for the most part. The details of
the data analysis are presented below and grouped thematically. The first category relates to
civility being considered a behavioral norm by several interviewees.
Workplace Civility as a Behavioral Norm
Idris and Dana both described their overall approach to interpersonal relationships at
work as being one grounded in civility. Dana said, “I am generally a civil person, so I usually
find it easy to be civil with everyone.” For Dana, being civil at work comes naturally because she
considers this behavior to be part of who she is. Idris, on the other hand, indicated that the
professionalism and collegiality that are the hallmarks of his interaction style have come from
conscious effort and practice: “I’m the type of person that I'm very measured in what I say. I’m
very practiced. I try to be professional at all times, collegial.” As discussed during the knowledge
influence analysis above, Ella talked about how she regarded herself as professional in her
dealings with people at work. She continued, “I’m also very responsive. And to me, I don’t care
who you are. You could be the janitor or the dean of a department, a school, whatever.” Ella’s
professionalism and responsiveness are important components of her interaction style that apply
regardless of the seniority of the person with whom she is interacting. In the knowledge
95

influence analysis above, Gabriela described how she sometimes comes across as uncivil without
meaning to because something she intends as a joke lands badly. However, when reflecting on
her ability to be civil, she recognized that she pays close attention to how she comes across with
people with whom she has not yet interacted: “I do think I’m very careful when I write emails,
for example, to someone I don’t know yet. I’m very careful about how I introduce myself and I
think I follow a pretty good email etiquette.” Gabriela is aware that people who are not familiar
with her interaction style are more likely to misunderstand her intentions and she puts extra
effort into behaving civilly as a result. While several participants focused on civility as a
behavioral norm, other participants reflected on their ability to be civil specifically in their role
as managers.
Workplace Civility as a Managerial Trait
Carlton spoke about how he behaves civilly to inspire a culture of positivity and
collaboration:
I don’t think anybody feels uncomfortable coming to me in my office. I have an open-
door policy… It’s a very collaborative kind of environment. I try to make people feel
good about being here. I walk around and I say “Hi”. I rarely make any phone calls
unless I’m back to back to back. I’ll just walk down the hall and go talk to the person.
Carlton focuses on making everybody in the team feel comfortable and heard. He achieves this
by walking the floor and speaking to people, and by making it clear that anybody is welcome to
drop into his office. Kea talked about how being inclusive in her interactions with her team
contributes to her success in managing her department’s IT needs:
I really do try to be as inclusive as I possibly can, because I also think that, I mean, from
a rather selfish motive, it’s a lot easier to get things done if you guys like each other…
96

When you guys have built that trust and that safety, it’s a lot easier to push things
through.
If everybody treats each other well, they can achieve more together, and Kea tries to set an
example in this regard. Femi offered a more interconnected perspective on how she and her team
maintain civility. Civility is an important value for the team and, because they have known each
other for so long, all team members are happy to hold each other accountable when they are
behaving disrespectfully:
And I feel that we’ve been together for so long that we feel very comfortable calling each
other out. Like, don’t say that. That’s mean, or you’re being disrespectful right now. Like
if they’re making fun of… I don’t know. I’m trying to think of an example. Like, I know
this sounds very cheesy, but we had a heated discussion about the whole Meghan Markle
and Prince Harry interview and calling out, “Oh, she’s pulling out the mental health
card.” And I’m like, “Stop. That’s mean because people do suffer from that.” So, we feel
amongst our colleagues or close colleagues, we do a really good job of calling each other
out.
By engaging in self-policing when necessary, Femi feels that she and her teammates help each
other maintain a high level of civility. This monitoring process enables the team to maximize
both its collective self-efficacy and that of the individuals within it. While civility can be
bolstered by the members of a team policing each other and being comfortable in doing so,
civility can also be improved by training.
The Impact of Training on Workplace Civility
The civility shown by Bianca and her teammates in HR is built on a foundation of
training in how to have constructive conversations:
97

What is interesting in my department is that three of the seven teammates are certified in
Crucial Conversations. My teammates learned the dialogue skills that help one to have
difficult talks with anyone about anything to reach alignment and agreement on important
matters. These skills turn into behaviors that improve decision making, commitment to
action, productivity, and relationships. I think that almost half of my department has these
skills and shares their resources to really make an impact on our team in how decisions
are made.
Because of the Crucial Conversations (Patterson, 2002) training that nearly half of her team have
undergone, Bianca and her team are able to interact in a positive way and reach alignment when
making group decisions. In discussing their ability to be civil in the workplace, some participants
went beyond what they considered to be this minimum requirement.
Going Beyond Workplace Civility
For Anthony, the foundation of his belief in his ability to be civil to his teammates stems
from having worked closely with them for several years:
Not to get all the warm butterflies and stuff, but we’ve been working together for four
years now, and we care about each other. We’re good friends. It’s not just surface-level
employee-to-employee interactions. It’s actually like this is my friend, I’m working with
my friends. And we trust each other.
Anthony and his colleagues treat each other civilly, but, more than that, they are close friends
who care about each other and trust each other. Helen also feels that she brings more than civility
to her relationships at work. Because of the toxic environment caused by the incivility of one of
her direct reports, Helen has been looking for other jobs:
98

In my cover letters that I write, I talk about compassion and empathy because I want the
folks wherever I’m working to know that’s what I bring with me, and that’s what I expect
at a place that I work.
Helen sees herself as capable of more than civility; she considers herself to be compassionate
and empathetic, and she wants these behaviors to be reciprocated in her work environment.
Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Believe in Their Ability to
Demonstrate Civility in the Workplace
In summary, all 12 administrative staff who were interviewed believed in their ability to
be civil in the workplace. Consequently, this motivation influence is considered to be an asset
rather than a need.
Staff Need to See Others Around Them Modeling Civil Behavior in Order to Be Motivated
to Demonstrate Civility Themselves (M-2, Asset)
As discussed in Chapter 2, seeing other people, especially leaders, modeling civility can
motivate people to behave civilly themselves (Foulk et al., 2016; Taylor & Pattie, 2014). When
asked to consider people around them at work who modeled civil behavior, 10 of the 12
participants were able to offer examples; only two participants were not able to think of any.
Analysis of participant comments about models of civility is presented thematically below. The
first category pertains to the modeling of civility in general within organizations.
General Existence of Civility Models
Anthony suggested that most people in his organization model civility: “There’s more
people who are civil than people are uncivil, and that’s why I love working at [my
organization]”. Similarly, Idris noted that there are many people in his workplace who offer him
inspiration as it relates to civil behavior: “I think there are a lot of other individuals that inspire
99

me in different aspects, for sure.” Gabriela reflected on both the past and the present to conclude
that she also had models of civility she could look to for guidance: “I definitely do. Mm-hmm.
And past models, people I’ve worked with in the past.” While some interviewees spoke about
civility being modeled generally within their organizations, several interviewees spoke
specifically about the role of supervisors in such modeling.
Supervisor Modeling of Civility
Anthony, who has a difficult relationship with his current supervisor as described earlier,
reflected on the qualities of his previous supervisor, who he felt was much more supportive and
trustful of him and his teammates:
She encouraged us to be innovative, and she gave us the space to be innovative. She
didn’t hover over us… That’s one way she demonstrated her trust in us. But the other
way is just our weekly one-on-ones were 10 minutes’ worth of check-ins like, “How are
you doing on your projects?” “Do you need any help from me?” and offering support.
That was the other one. So, giving us the freedom, offering support, regular check-ins.
She was interested in our personal growth, our personal and professional development,
right? So, I think all of those are great examples of how she modeled civility in the
workplace environment, and that’s at a leadership role.
Anthony indicated that the team was much happier and more productive under their previous
leader than under their current one, and this was due to her supportiveness, the frequent one-on-
one meetings she held with each team member, and her willingness to give the team autonomy.
One-on-one check-ins were also a component of the management approach adopted by Bianca’s
supervisor:
100

We feel comfortable venting to her, or coming to her because again, she’s kind of
allowed herself to be vulnerable herself, and she shares, and she encourages everyone at
each meeting, she does a daily check-in [about our] mental health. In fact, if she knew
one of us was experiencing stress, she encourages time off as far as just take a breather.
Bianca regards her supervisor as a model of civility because she cares about the wellbeing of the
team and is willing to listen to and help people with their problems. Moreover, Bianca’s
supervisor exhibits vulnerability as a way of encouraging others to speak up about their
difficulties rather than stay silent. Femi’s main model for civil behavior is a woman who is now
her mentor but who used to be her supervisor:
She was my supervisor when I first started, and I’ve taken her in as a mentor… And she
always taught me, don’t forget, those are Christ’s children. Those are Jesus’ children. So
that’s how I would know like, oh, no matter how much this person makes me so upset,
you’re a child of God. That’s what she always sees in people. And she always tries to
find the kindness in people and the positive side of people.
Femi’s mentor demonstrates empathy and always tries to see the good in people, and Femi tries
to mirror this behavior in her own workplace interactions. In contrast with Anthony, Bianca, and
Femi, who described how they had looked to past and present supervisors as models of civility,
some interviewees looked beyond their immediate supervisors to other people in leadership roles
within their universities.
Leadership Modeling of Civility
Dana spoke about a director in a different department with whom she works closely:
101

I think she models open communication, she models transparency, she models respect,
she models inclusivity. She models diverse voices and opinions. So, I think we have
examples.
Dana sees the various civil behaviors displayed by her colleague, such as transparency, respect,
and inclusivity, and considers them to be an aspirational model for herself and others in the
organization. Lexi described having a supervisor who models civility, but her remarks were more
focused on the dean of her university:
I meet with the dean and her entire staff every other week to talk about student services.
Again, that sort of trust and access and willingness to listen and I mean, she can’t always
make things happen, but that to me is a good model of leadership… But she has given her
trust to me or listening to what I’m saying, what other student services people are saying,
and I will be loyal to her. I think it’s a great model… I do think I have more hope now
than I have at other times in terms of watching people who are really, again, tending to
their environment, their organizational culture.
The dean of Lexi’s university trusts her employees, she listens to them, and she makes herself
available to them. Lexi believes that, in doing this, the dean is showing that she cares about
making the culture a positive one, one in which people are more likely to be civil towards each
other. While some interviewees spoke about models of civility who were in supervisory or
leadership roles, several interviewees spoke about other employees who modeled civility.
Peer Modeling of Civility
Carlton, who works in a school of nursing, talked generally of the positive behavioral
modeling offered by nurses in the school, who “are a warm, generally approachable, kind-
hearted profession and people.” At Idris’s institution, the university chaplain is a model of civil
102

behavior: “She’s very kind, soft-spoken and some people interpret that as weakness. However, I
look at that as she's very respectful and civil with everyone and she has a very unique take on
things.” While Idris sees the chaplain’s polite, kind behavior as something to aspire to, he
acknowledges that others view it as a sign of weakness. Although Ella regards most faculty she
deals with at her institution to be uncivil in their interactions with her, she acknowledges that
there are few who model civil behavior:
There are a couple of faculty members who are very respectful, and very appreciative of
work that I and others do. They also recognize your specific skill set and expertise and
ask your opinion and… yeah. So, there are a few people like that. Yes.
These faculty members demonstrate civility by treating Ella and her colleagues respectfully and
by recognizing them for their abilities and efforts. Although most participants were able to point
to models of civility in their organizations, whether those models were supervisors, leaders, or
other types of employees, two participants could not offer any examples of people in their
workplaces who demonstrated civil behavior.
Absence of Civility Models
Helen described the lack of civility models within her school:
In my school, I don’t think we’re really getting that modeling. I think that things could
change, especially now that we have this new president at the institution who really does
care. You can feel it every time you hear her speak. And so, I would hope that things
would change with her, but I don’t know. Especially because we are so siloed, so my
school is really who I see most of the time and we just don’t really have that modeling of
how to be a good human.
103

Although Helen’s university has a new president who does appear to demonstrate civil, caring
behavior, Helen feels she and her colleagues operate in a silo and do not have access to that
modeling in daily practice. For Julia, the situation appears less optimistic: “Models of good
behavior? That’s really maybe showing how much negativity there is. I cannot think of any.”
This observation that there are no models of civility in her organization ties in with her desire to
remove herself as much as possible from her negative workplace culture, as described earlier.
Summary of Findings for Staff Needing to See Others Around Them Modeling Civil Behavior
in Order to Be Motivated to Demonstrate Civility Themselves
Of the administrative staff who were interviewed, 10 were able to describe a range of
people in their workplace who modeled civility. These included current supervisors, former
supervisors, people in leadership roles, and peers. For these 10 interviewees, it is assumed that
being able to see such models has a beneficial impact on their own ability to demonstrate civility
in the workplace. The two interviewees who had no models of civility to draw from still
considered themselves to be civil, compassionate, and empathetic. However, one of them is
actively looking for other jobs and the other has withdrawn from her workplace culture as much
as possible. Because 10 participants represent a majority, this motivational influence is
considered to be an asset overall rather than a need.
Administrative Staff Need to Value Civility as a Component of Their Success at Work (M-3,
Asset)
Chapter 2 described two successful civility interventions that were based upon the
assumption that people will behave more civilly if they appreciate how important civil behavior
is to job performance and to the advancement of their organization’s mission (Lasater et al.,
2015; Osatuke et al., 2009). Analysis of the interview data revealed that all 12 administrative
104

staff who were interviewed regarded civility as a prerequisite for being successful in their jobs.
The different ways in which participants valued civility are discussed thematically below. The
first category to be considered is the importance of relationships.
The Importance of Relationships
Five of the interviewees described the value of civility in relation to their relationships
with people in their organizations. In her role managing IT in a small department, Kea considers
trustful relationships with colleagues outside the department to be essential to achieving things at
work:
The reason why I’m able to get things done is because I have those relationships and the
relationships are all about trust. They trust what I have to say, or I trust what they have to
say. And they’re willing to partner and give their time and energy to help me.
Given the lack of resources Kea has at her disposal because of the small size of her department,
fostering civil working relationships with others elsewhere in the university is an important
foundation for her success. Bianca also works with people throughout her university, and she
must often ask them for things. She can only do this if she builds strong relationships and civility
is the glue that holds such relationships together: “I think it is pivotal and necessary, and
completely in my role because I’m having to do a lot of asks, and a lot of times it’s people I
don’t know, so I’m trying to build those relationships.” Lexi similarly acknowledged that her job
is reliant on relationships with others: “Well, my whole job is dependent on other people… I’m
not interested in being somewhere where I don’t have that civility or trust or feel like I’m
working towards something with people who have the same goals or values.” Civil relationships
are important for Lexi to succeed, and she has no interest in working somewhere where those
relationships do not exist.
105

Ella and Gabriela also spoke about the importance of nurturing relationships and treating
people civilly. Ella learned how pivotal good relationships are to success when she worked in the
corporate world:
In the corporate world relationships always matter, how you treat people. Because like I
said, I came from a situation where I dealt with different parts of our organization. I dealt
with clients and prospective clients a lot. And then here it’s the same.
In her current role as a project manager, Ella works with multiple stakeholders inside and outside
her organization. She described one project that was particularly complex in this regard:
But there were 11 sites that we had to work with. We had to work with external partners,
and then a lot of people here. So, to get things done, relationships and how you treat
people matters a ton.
Ella understands that the only way a project involving this many different stakeholders can
succeed is if the relationships between the stakeholders are positive. For these relationships to be
positive, the people in them must treat each other civilly. Like Ella, Gabriela deals with different
groups around her university and she recognizes that good relationships are foundational to her
success:
My job definitely depends on social capital, and it depends on good relationships. And it
depends on reading the room. And I think it took me a while to understand that because I
came from environments where you could be a lot more breezy or succinct and the
people that I deal with, they range from people in facilities who, yeah just get to the
point, you don’t have to ask them how their day is going to tell them you need another
electrical outlet, and they’ll do it. And then people who have that veneer of etiquette and
106

seem to want a lot of formality and so I’m getting better at that. But the success of my
work definitely depends on relationships.
However, Gabriela also appreciates that every relationship is different and comes with its own
expectations. What is seen as efficient communication by one person, can be seen as brusqueness
or incivility by another. Accordingly, Gabriela has had to spend time enhancing her
communication repertoire so that she can have civil, constructive relationships with everybody.
Another category that emerged during the analysis was the importance of civil disagreement in
workplace interactions.
The Importance of Civil Disagreement
Two of the interviewees, Helen and Femi, acknowledged the importance of civility to
their success while also drawing a distinction between incivility and disagreement. For Helen,
disagreement in itself does not automatically indicate incivility. On the contrary, disagreement is
healthy and constructive, as long as it occurs within the parameters of civility:
I think that we need civility. I want to be clear that I think disagreements are actually
really important, and I think that that’s how we can come up with new ideas, when we
don’t agree on different things. It’s when we don't agree on different things and we’re
mean about it, to me it’s just not okay. And so, it is really important to me.
In Helen’s experience, problems arise when people disagree, but when they cannot do so
respectfully. For this reason, dialogue must be civil if it is to be successful. Femi and her team
disagree often, but, like Helen, Femi recognizes that disagreement is an important part of
resolving problems. In Femi’s case, however, the most important thing is for her team to display
unity in the aftermath of any differences of opinion:
107

Do we disagree? All the time. But we all know, they know that my role as your
supervisor is we’re going to disagree behind that closed door, but once we open that door,
we’re strong. We agreed to this together and we are going to stand as a united front…
You’re dealing with suicide students, you’re dealing with suicide ideation students,
you’re dealing with people who were assaulted, you’re dealing with people that are
having mental health issues. So, it’s an emotionally draining situation with us when we’re
having to go through those incidents, so we have to be very united in order for us to be
able to succeed.
Given the stressful nature of the problems her team has to solve, Femi views it as especially
important that they remain united so that they can support each other and ensure the team is
successful. In this way, civility can be seen as essential to the team’s performance. In contrast to
Femi, who spoke about the importance of her entire team demonstrating civility, two
participants, Carlton and Anthony, spoke about the pivotal role that supervisor civility plays in
the success of a team.
The Importance of Supervisor Civility
Carlton reflected on his own position as a manager of a team of staff in his school:
It’s incredibly important for me to behave civilly towards my colleagues. I try to make
sure I do, and my colleagues do to each other every day. I want everyone to know that
they are supported. Treating someone poorly has lasting negative consequences. I’m here
to work for the team around me and I can’t be successful if they are not willing to help
and work hard.
Carlton recognizes that his success is dependent upon the performance of the team and that the
team will only perform well if he treats them respectfully and supports them. Anthony is not
108

himself a supervisor, but he talked about the importance of supervisor civility from the
perspective of someone whose two most recent experiences of being managed were very
different with respect to how he was treated:
If you treat people right, if you treat your staff right, they’re going to want to work for
you, they’re going to want to make sacrifices to meet deadlines and be motivated to do
well, and that will help you hit the numbers that you need to hit.
Anthony’s current manager micromanages him and treats him disrespectfully, which has
negatively affected his motivation. By contrast, Anthony’s former manager gave him autonomy
and behaved civilly toward him, which energized Anthony and inspired him to perform. The
final category that emerged from the analysis was the notion of civility as not just a prerequisite
for success in the workplace, but as a way of life more broadly.
Civility as a Way of Life
Julia, whose team includes only one other person, considered civility in the context of her
interactions with the faculty and students she serves in her role:
I would say we have to be very customer service oriented, and our customers are the
students and the faculty. And so, in order to be successful in our jobs, we have to be very
customer centric. And we pride ourselves.
Julia and her teammate acknowledge that being customer-focused is a necessary component of
their success. More than that, however, they take pride in treating people well. Customer focus is
a value that they uphold and want to be known for. Idris has also internalized the importance of
civility to the point where he finds it hard to empathize with people who do not treat others well:
I go back to what I consider to be right, what’s my north star? What’s right? What’s just?
What’s fair? And being professional and civil is a part of it and I don’t understand people
109

that that is not a part of what they think is important. I shouldn’t have to spell out those
things to you that at a human level should be automatic.
For Idris, civility is an integral part of his humanity, and it should be part of everyone’s.
Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Value Civility as a Component of
Their Success at Work
In summary, all 12 interviewees indicated that civility was a vital ingredient in their
ability to succeed at work. Participants approached the topic from different angles: some focused
on the importance of good relationships; some focused on the difference between disagreement
and incivility; some reflected on the nature of supervisor civility; and others took a broader view
of civility. However, all participants were unified in their appreciation of the importance of
civility to their success.
Administrative Staff Need to Experience Positive Emotions if They Are to Demonstrate
Civility (M-4, Asset)
As discussed in Chapter 2, positive emotions have been shown to be predictive of good
performance at work (Pekrun, 2018). Based on this finding, it is assumed that experiencing
positive emotions is necessary for someone to be able to contribute to a civil working
environment. All 12 of the administrative staff who were interviewed described at least some
aspect of their current job about which they felt positive. The aspects of work about which
participants felt positive are analyzed thematically below. The first of these categories relates to
workplace culture.

110

The Positive Impact of a Healthy Workplace Culture
Three of the interviewees, Anthony, Femi, and Helen, focused on their relationships with
their teams and within their organizations more broadly. Anthony described how the close bond
he has developed with his teammates spans both the professional and personal domains:
So, we talk about our personal lives. We not only talk about our personal lives, but we’re
invested in each other’s personal lives, and then we also balance that out with the
workload, and we share each other’s new ideas in the field because we want to be
innovative in our space.
Not only do Anthony and his colleagues collaborate closely and exchange ideas about the work,
but they share in each other’s lives outside the office. This close bond has helped Anthony cope
with the negative impact of his supervisor’s uncivil behavior.
Femi also spoke about the professional and personal closeness of her team:
We’re very family-oriented both as coworkers and then as supporting our own personal
families. And then the other thing is I love, love, love, love, love the faith-based part of it.
It doesn’t matter what is your faith, it doesn’t matter what your faith is. We support it.
We want to know more about your faith. How do you pray? What do you do? What do
you believe in? So, I really like that it’s a safe environment for us when it comes to being
able to express yourself, life choices, we support you. And I think that because of that
environment, people feel comfortable to say, "Hey, this is my lifestyle choice. Whoa,
great. We embrace you. Come on in."
In addition to feeling like her teammates are family members who support each other, Femi
acknowledges the crucial role that faith plays in the positive culture within her workplace. Faith
brings everyone on the team and in the organization closer together, and the organization’s
111

broadminded approach to faith helps create a welcoming, supportive environment in which
people can display their authentic identities.
Although Helen is currently experiencing challenges with her team that are not a source
of positive feelings for her, to the point where she is actively looking elsewhere for jobs, she did
talk about the environment at her organization generally being a positive one: “I think, in
general, I think it is a good environment to come to work to. There are these issues, of course,
but that’s not the overwhelming majority.” Helen appreciates that there are specific issues that
are compromising her happiness at work, but these issues are offset by the overall positivity of
the environment. This positivity represents a fertile ground in which civility can take root. The
next category that emerged from the analysis was the positive contribution supervisors can make
to their employees’ emotional state.
The Positive Impact of a Good Supervisor
Kea reported having a great relationship with her team, but she singled out her manager
as being the sole motivator for her to stay at her school: “I’m here because I love the people I
work with. I love working for my boss. He’s the reason why I’m still at [my organization], to be
honest with you.” It is this deep, positive regard she has for her manager that insulates her
against the incivility she experiences and enables her to continue performing. Bianca reported a
similar high regard for her new supervisor and explained more specifically why:
Our mission is to make our organization a positive and healthy workplace for our
employees. My new supervisor is energized by her work. Her passion really comes
through, and it is infectious. Even though we are now all remote, I am still excited every
day about our possibilities and the potential impact our team will make.
112

Bianca’s supervisor brings a passion and energy to her work that rubs off on Bianca and the
team. The result is that Bianca feels excited about what the team can achieve.
Carlton and Idris both described the role of the supervisor in engendering positivity from
a managerial perspective. As a supervisor himself, Carlton makes a conscious effort to foster a
collaborative culture within his department: “It’s a very collaborative kind of environment. I try
to make people feel good about being here.” He wants his team to experience positive emotions
when they are at work and he recognizes that if people are feeling good about the environment,
they are more likely to treat each other well. Idris also pays close attention to the wellbeing of his
team and to maximizing the positivity they experience, especially during the pandemic when
everybody had been working remotely:
I think people are enjoying working from home. I have given my direct reports and
anyone in IT a lot of autonomy… I’ve given a great amount of flexibility to that and that
has been very well received and I think that based upon the measures that we have, we’re
more productive now than we’ve ever been.
Idris has granted as much autonomy as possible to his subordinates and has been as flexible with
them as he can be. Because of this fundamentally civil and respectful way in which he deals with
his subordinates, the whole team feels positively about him, and the work even more than they
did before the pandemic, and their productivity has increased accordingly. While most
interviewees focused primarily on interpersonal relationships as the source of positive emotions
at work, some of them talked about the nature of the job itself.

113

The Positive Impact of Enjoying the Work Itself
Ella and Julia both derive pleasure from what they do in their jobs. Ella enjoys the
process of managing projects and she values being able to contribute her knowledge and
experience to the projects she oversees:
I’m a project manager, so I like to get things done. So, I find satisfaction in completing
things. So, that’s one thing that I like. I also like to be able to contribute in areas that I
have expertise in. So, I also find value in that.
Julia works for her university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and described how she loves
helping her customers, who are faculty and students, interpret and abide by federal regulations
that govern human subjects research:
I have always really loved what I do. Despite where I have worked and the difficulties
that I have had, I have always really loved the idea of taking a set of federal regulations
and applying them to something and trying to find the most liberal interpretation and
application of it. And that’s what keeps me interested in the job. It really has not ever
been the institution itself.
It is her enjoyment of the work and her realization of its value that enable her to remain feeling
positive, despite the negative impact of the incivility she has experienced at her current and
previous institutions.
For Dana and Gabriela, it is the knowledge that they have performed well that allows
them to enjoy the job and experience positive emotions while at work. Dana’s role is focused
heavily on helping students and it is her effectiveness in providing this help that makes her feel
good: “I experience positive emotions at work when I know I have done a good job or been
impactful for someone else.” For Gabriela, external indicators of success are more important;
114

“positive feedback, acknowledgment and recognition” make the biggest contribution to her
enjoyment of her job as an arts engagement manager. However, it is specifically the experience
of being sought out for her skill and expertise by people on campus that gives Gabriela the
greatest sense of satisfaction:
If someone asks me for example, to speak to their students or to lead a workshop for their
department because they recognize what I do and what value I bring to their students or
their department and it’s not something that I’ve offered to them, that makes me feel like
a job well done. That’s a satisfying experience.
Lexi’s perspective on what makes her feel positive emotions at work overlaps with the
reflections offered by both Dana and Gabriela. Like Dana, Lexi works closely with students, and
this brings her great pleasure: “I love working with the students”. In addition, like Gabriela, Lexi
understands how validation and recognition are important to her sense of wellbeing at work:
“Being heard, being trusted, those are the things that I value much more than a title or money.” It
is this sense of having her expertise acknowledged and appreciated that enables Lexi to
experience positive emotions at work, and these positive emotions make it easy for her to treat
her colleagues civilly.
Summary of Findings for Administrative Staff Needing to Experience Positive Emotions if
They Are to Demonstrate Civility
In summary, all 12 participants were able to describe at least one element of their jobs
that enabled them to experience positive emotions. For some participants, relationships with
teammates and supervisors were the source of this positivity. For others, the job itself, the sense
of achievement, and the receipt of recognition were the primary drivers for feeling good about
being at work. Although all interviewees reported issues with incivility in their workplaces, in
115

some cases so extreme that it motivated them to consider leaving their jobs, everybody was able
to identify something that counterbalanced the negativity and motivated them to stay.
Consequently, this motivation influence is considered to be an asset rather than a need.
Summary of Findings for Motivation Influences
Chapter 2 described four motivation influences that are assumed to be prerequisites for
administrative staff to demonstrate civility in the workplace. The first relates to the concept of
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and proposes that staff need to believe in their ability to be civil at
work. The second is concerned with the social modeling component of Bandura’s (1988) social
cognitive theory and states that staff need to see people in their work environments modeling
civil behavior. The third influence is derived from the concept of utility value (Pintrich, 2003),
which is one of the components of expectancy value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and
proposes that staff need to regard civility as an important factor in their success at work. The
final influence is based on achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2018) and states that staff need to
experience positive emotions if they are to behave civilly at work.
Analysis of the interview data revealed that all 12 participants believed in their ability to
be civil at work, regarded civility as being important to their success, and experienced positive
emotions at work. Only two participants reported being unable to think of any models of civil
behavior in their workplaces. Accordingly, all four motivation influences can be characterized as
assets rather than needs. The next section deals with those assumed influences on workplace
civility that are related to organizational factors.
Findings for Organizational Influences
In Chapter 2, four assumed organizational influences were identified as contributing to
the ability of administrative staff in higher education environments to maximize civility in their
116

workplaces: the fostering of a civil working environment; the fostering of a culture of
psychological safety and trust; the provision of resources, support and training to help staff
manage and cope with workplace incivility; and the provision of opportunities for administrative
staff to discuss civility in their workgroups. In addition, one newly identified need emerged from
analysis of the interview data: the need for higher education institutions to hold employees,
especially faculty, accountable for their behavior.
Table 8 lists the five organizational influences and indicates whether the influence is
considered to be a need, an asset, or a newly identified need.

Table 8
Assessment of Organizational Influences as Needs, Assets, or Newly Identified Needs
Organizational influence Need Asset
Newly identified
need
Higher education institutions need to foster
a civil working environment. (O-1)
X
Higher education institutions need to foster
a culture of psychological safety and trust
in order to lay the groundwork for a civil
working environment. (O-2)
X
Higher education institutions need to
provide resources, support and training
for administrative staff to manage and
cope with the impacts of an uncivil work
environment. (O-3)
X
Higher education institutions need to offer
administrative staff regular opportunities
to discuss civility in their workgroups.
(O-4)
X
Higher education institutions need to hold
all employees accountable for uncivil
behavior. (O-5, new influence)
X
117

Higher Education Institutions Need to Foster a Civil Working Environment (O-1, Need)
As discussed in Chapter 2, several researchers have described the pivotal role that
organizational factors play in maximizing workplace civility. For Osatuke et al. (2009), who
designed and implemented the CREW civility initiative across the VHA, civility must be
promoted at the organizational level if a civility initiative is to be successful. Similarly,
workplace incivility is reduced when norms for civility are defined at both the work group and
the organizational level (Spence Laschinger & Read, 2016; Walsh et al., 2012). Analysis of the
interview data in the current study indicated that nine of the 12 participants felt that their
organizations either did nothing or did not do enough to foster a civil working environment,
while three of them felt that their organizations performed sufficiently in this regard. The details
of this analysis are grouped thematically and presented below. The first category relates to
organizations that do a good job of fostering a civil working environment.
Organizations That Succeed in Fostering Civility
Gabriela did not single out any particular organizationally driven activity or initiative that
contributed to civility at her institution, but she did comment on how interactions across the
university are very polite: “General communications and interactions at my university are
extremely polite, especially in writing. This has been a year of politeness.” At Gabriela’s
institution, civility is baked into the organizational culture. This culture inspires people to treat
each other well and collectively perpetuate civility. In Lexi’s organization, civility is fostered by
valuing everybody regardless of their role or status:
Whether you’re IT, the front desk person, or the executive director, are we all in
alignment with what we’re doing? Your job as the front desk person is just as valuable as
the director because you impact there, you’re the first person students see. Giving value
118

to everybody’s sort of role in the organization, no matter wherever you are in the org
chart. I think it’s interesting to be in a place where people are actively trying to build that
culture instead of a strategy for, you know, this or that.
By making all its employees feel valued, the organization has created a culture where people are
less likely to disrespect or disregard each other, two behaviors that are the hallmarks of incivility.
Carlton expressed a similarly positive view about the culture of the nursing school where he
works. As a leader of a large team within the school, he amplifies the culture of civility that
exists when he onboards new people:
I try and make sure that we welcome new people where I introduce them to everybody. In
a normal time, I would walk them around and introduce them to everybody who’s
physically in the building at that time, and then when we have a staff meeting do
introductions again, help them feel welcome, walk them to the supply room and help
them get settled and introduce them to all the key people on campus that they might be
interacting with. And so, I think we do a good job of onboarding.
By making an intentional effort to immerse newcomers into the school and connect them with
people, Carlton is fostering civility and perpetuating the school’s positive culture. In contrast
with those interviewees who felt that their organizations did a good job of fostering civility,
some interviewees presented a more mixed picture of their organizations.
Organizations That Could Do More to Foster Civility
At Bianca’s university, which is undergoing a multi-year cultural transformation effort,
there is a lengthy onboarding process for new managers that gives them the tools to promote
civility and other positive cultural behaviors within their teams:
119

Right now, there’s an onboarding program that if you’ve come in and you’re hired, and
you’re going to be in a management role, you go through a management essentials
program, and I believe it’s like nine weeks, where, it’s great as far as these people are
coming to [my organization] and they’re going to learn about growth mindset and how to
provide feedback in a constructive way, so all wonderful things, but what about all the
managers that are already here and the ones that maybe are causing some of these toxic
work environments, so they’re now trying to think of a way to provide it for anyone in a
management role, kind of as an upskilling… And so, I think we’re maybe moving in the
right direction, but we still have a long way to go.
Although managerial training is successful at fostering the desired culture among new managers
and their teams, it is not yet available to managers who already work at the university and who
behave uncivilly. Bianca feels that her organization could do more to foster civility by
addressing this discrepancy. Idris also spoke about training that his institution offers against the
backdrop of a contract that all new employees sign and that includes clauses about civility and
professionalism: “We have an employee contract that talks about civility and professionalism.
We do have some training programs, but I think enforcement, it’s difficult.” While the institution
fosters employee civility by means of contractual agreements and training, Idris feels that it falls
short in holding people accountable for their behavior.
Femi’s institution does not explicitly reference civility in employee contracts, but the
faith-based, mission-driven ethos of the university is used to drive the hiring process: “We are a
mission driven institution, and not only mission driven, but it is faith based. When you go
through the interview process you have to go through mission and identity first.” By effectively
screening for civility in the interview process, the organization maximizes its chances of
120

recruiting people who will uphold its values. However, despite the generally positive culture at
her university, Femi did report an issue of leadership not acting in response to complaints about
problematic behavior:
Where my trust lowers is, I brought up my concerns to a person above as a side
conversation as a confidant because I knew this person way before they hit those higher
ranks, but I’ve been told suck it up. Change is going to happen. You need to be patient.
The culture at Femi’s organization is generally a strong and positive one, but when people do
mistreat others, there is room for improvement in how leadership responds. In contrast with the
seven participants who reported that their organizations fully or partially foster a civil working
environment, five participants spoke only about the lack of such fostering in their institutions.
Organizations That Do Little to Foster Civility
Like Femi, Helen described the problem of leadership inaction in response to civility
issues:
I think that for challenging employees, not just mine, but I’m sure there are other folks at
the university who have challenges, I think really taking that seriously. That’s the thing, I
think they’re just not. It’s not that they’re not, even my dean knows about the situation in
the office and says to me all the time, like, “Yeah, we need to do something about it,” but
then never actually does anything about it.
At Helen’s university, leaders all the way up to the dean are aware of problems with the behavior
of certain individuals, but they never take any action to deal with the behavior. While this
phenomenon is counterbalanced at Femi’s institution by the promotion of a positive culture, the
same is not true at Helen’s institution:
121

There definitely are things at the institution that I think folks try to do, but it often comes
from the staff level and not from the administration. Like having potlucks and having
note cards that you write your thankyous to your staff members and stuff, I think those
are all great things. But that’s not coming from the leadership, that’s coming from the
staff members.
Staff demonstrate civil behavior, but this is not because of any push from the organization or its
leadership. On the contrary, where civility exists in the culture it is due to grass roots efforts at
the individual and team level.
At Dana’s university, civility is not part of the cultural fabric, and the organization does
not foster it:
It just needs to be part of our vernacular. And it’s simply not. I mean, unless you read the
literature, right? Unless you’ve read the writers or think about the topic, it’s just not. And
it’s just simply not rewarded. Civility is really not in our environment. Excellence and
performance are rewarded not civility.
Instead of rewarding people for behaving civilly, the organization rewards people for performing
well. In other words, the university cares what people achieve but not how they achieve it. In
Dana’s view, this prioritization of values is incompatible with the promotion of a civil working
environment.
Several of the participants who did not see any efforts within their organizations to foster
civility focused on issues with leadership. Anthony described a lack of a feedback culture among
leaders at his university:
I don’t think any supervisor gets trained on how to give feedback, and that’s a huge thing
for any supervisor to get trained on in my opinion because that is one important skillset
122

for a supervisor to have because they’re constantly and should constantly be giving
feedback because they’re leaders. I don’t know how supervisors can know how we’re
feeling and how we’re feeling about our supervisor if we don’t give feedback in that
direction.
Leaders are not trained on giving or soliciting feedback and as a result there is a lack of
conversation between leaders and their subordinates to guide behavior on either side of the
relationship. Because leaders are not versed in the benefits of a feedback process, they miss out
on a powerful mechanism for promoting or sustaining civility.
For Ella, whose university similarly does little to foster civility, the main problem is the
incivility displayed at the very top of the organization: “So when you have the guy that’s in
charge of everybody, who’s like that, it makes it really hard.” Because the dean treats people
badly and does not value civility, this attitude trickles down through the school. Instead of
fostering civility at the institution, Ella sees leadership as doing the opposite.
At Kea’s university, the problem is not that leadership behaves uncivilly, but that
leadership does not consider everybody’s voice to be valid. By diminishing the importance of
some voices in the organization, the dean and his team are not creating an environment that is
conducive to positive interactions. Kea said,
So, there’s a lot of discussions. Is this valid? Of course, it’s valid. I was like, no, I want
leadership to say every person’s voice here is valid. To say that, there’s a permission
aspect of things that I think leadership can do. It’s not just the dean, but all the people
who are in that realm.
At Julia’s university, the fostering of a civil environment takes a backseat to the
economic concerns of the chancellor:
123

They have taken everything away that people used to love about the culture. We used to
have company outings and picnics and things like that, and they took it all away… We
got a new chancellor who is a businessperson and doesn’t see the value in treating your
people right because that costs money and in order to do that, you have to put the money
towards it. So, they literally took anything that was a bit of a perk. It’s all gone. So now
the feeling is like sit at your computer for at least eight hours a day, but also please sit
there 10 or 12 hours a day and don’t move.
Not only does the new chancellor not value or foster civility, but he makes financial decisions
that serve to degrade what civility might have existed. In taking away things that made people
appreciate the organization and in expecting people to increase their effort, he has, in Julia’s
view, harmed morale and created a breeding ground for incivility.
Summary of Findings for Higher Education Institutions Needing to Foster a Civil Working
Environment
In summary, analysis of the interview data revealed a spectrum of views about to what
extent people’s organizations fostered a civil working environment. Three participants described
a positive, civil culture that was actively promoted by their institutions. Three participants
reported generally civil environments supported to some extent by organizational efforts, but
they acknowledged that there was significant room for improvement. The other six participants
expressed dissatisfaction with both the culture of their organizations and with the lack of action
taken to foster civility. Because nine of the 12 interviewees spoke of a shortfall in the
organizational promotion of civil behavior, this influence is considered to be a need rather than
an asset.
124

Higher Education Institutions Need to Foster a Culture of Trust and Psychological Safety
in Order to Lay the Groundwork for a Civil Working Environment (O-2, Need)
As discussed in Chapter 2, the existence of both trust and psychological safety in
organizations is associated with a range of positive employee behaviors. Trust in leadership has
been shown to correlate with altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship,
and general employee wellbeing (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kelloway et al., 2012). Psychological
safety has been shown to be predictive of employees speaking up about their work concerns and
about how to improve processes and practices in the work environment (Burris et al., 2008;
Liang et al., 2012). These research findings imply that employees who trust leadership and
experience psychological safety will be more likely to contribute to a civil workplace. Analysis
of the interview data in the current study revealed that six of the 12 administrative staff felt that
their organizations fostered a sense of trust and psychological safety while six staff did not.
Organizations That Foster Psychological Safety and Trust
Carlton was one of the six interviewees who spoke positively about trust and
psychological safety within his organization: “I think there’s a higher level of trust in the School
of Nursing than across the university… I think I trust a whole majority of the faculty and staff,
and it’s a good relationship.” Carlton experiences this sense of trust himself and he also sees it in
evidence throughout his school, although less so within the broader organization. Carlton also
puts effort into fostering trust and psychological safety within his own department. He gave an
example of a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) book discussion meeting that involved staff at
all different levels:
It’s important for me to recognize that in those situations people can view me differently
and would speak differently based on having me in the room, but it’s also important for
125

me to take part in those to show support, to show that I’m willing to be vulnerable,
progressing my own thinking, show solidarity with my colleagues. And so, I want people
to feel comfortable together.
Carlton understands how important his behavior is in helping staff more junior than him feel
trust and safety. In exhibiting vulnerability and supportiveness, he puts those staff at ease.
Gabriela also experiences trust and psychological safety at her university. She “trusts the
leadership especially over the past year and during other crises.” She feels the university is in
safe hands and is especially aware of this during difficult periods such as the pandemic. In
addition, she feels psychologically safe in all the interactions she has with people at different
levels of the organization:
For me I definitely have psychological safety and I’m in a lot of working groups and
peer-to-peer committees. We’re doing work, but it’s also very supportive and social. And
we do a lot of that at the beginning of the meeting, especially this past year when
everything’s been so challenging.
At Gabriela’s university, people put special emphasis on supporting each other and nurturing a
sense of community, more so during the pandemic.
Helen and Idris reported experiencing a similar sense of psychological safety within their
institutions. Helen said, “I think the university does try to provide us with a safe environment so
that we can feel good about coming to work every day,” and Idris said, “I think by and large,
institutionally, people feel comfortable speaking up, mostly on the staff side.” In both of these
cases, the interviewees considered their institutions broadly and felt that they did a good job of
making staff feel psychologically safe. Lexi felt similarly about her organization, but she
126

acknowledged that psychological safety does not just materialize; on the contrary, it must be
fostered by leadership as part of an overall effort to nurture the cultural landscape:
You have to tend to your environment and your staff and your organization to keep up
that psychological safety. If you don’t put that at the forefront, you can obviously get
away from that. I think I’ve learned a lot in the past four years being up here in terms of
how a good leader cultivates that and spends time on it.
Four years ago, Lexi moved from a toxic culture to a positive one. The difference between the
two cultures has made her realize how impactful a good leader can be on how employees feel.
Not only does Lexi see the leadership of her new department fostering psychological safety, but
she observes “lots of open communication, lots of time spent invested in building an
environment where people trust each other.” Open communication and positive relationships
were also identified by Idris as being pivotal in creating and maintaining a trustful environment:
“You can hear it in how people interact with our students and faculty and staff and how we
interact with each other, from my viewpoint. So, I think that speaks to high levels of trust.”
While six of the participants reported experiencing substantial trust and psychological
safety within their organizations, the other six spoke of a distinct lack of one or both cultural
attributes.
Organizations That Could Do More to Foster Psychological Safety and Trust
For interviewees who felt that their organizations did not do enough to foster
psychological safety and trust, analysis of their comments revealed two categories. The first
category relates to concerns around speaking up about issues in the workplace.
Personal Fears of Speaking Up. Femi conveyed concern about being seen in a bad light
and even being mistreated if she brings problems to the leadership of her institution:
127

However, me and several colleagues feel that we’re going to get on a bad list, if you will.
Like they’re going to be seen as a complainer. They’re going to be seen like the squeaky
wheel. And that’s not our intention at all, but it’s been very hard to be able to express
yourself without sounding like you are complaining. And what do you say? How do you
say it? What if they start treating me worse because I said something? So, it just makes it
really difficult to figure out.
Julia was not initially afraid to speak up about the problems she was experiencing with her
supervisor and with leadership in general. However, when she did so, her reputation and standing
in the university suffered greatly. As a result, she no longer feels safe:
There is no psychological safety. And this is in my experience. As I’ve mentioned, when
I had the issues that I had it was me against the university. There was no one helping me.
And I was told by an attorney, “Your institution will likely retaliate against you.” And
they did. And the attorney also said, “And there’s likely nothing anybody can do about it,
because it just won't be enough.”
Julia proved that, in the context of her organization, being afraid to speak up is fully justified.
Dana raised concerns about her supervisor with her school’s leadership and human
resources department and was left with a similar sense of helplessness and hopelessness that only
increased when she went to see the university ombudsperson:
The ombudsperson was like, you’ve got to get a new job because this is never going to
improve for you… And so, the expectation is that a lot of people are expendable and
replaceable. And if you don’t want to be replaced, then you have to just go with it.
128

In the aftermath of this experience, Dana feels psychologically unsafe and has no faith in the
willingness or ability of the human resources department to support employees as they are
supposed to:
I do not trust human resources in my specific college. I do not believe human resources is
actually there to protect or support staff. I believe they are solely there at the local level to
support the institution or the hierarchical structures that are in power.
For Anthony, even though his relationship with his supervisor has improved over recent
months, “there’s still a gap in trust that is hard to fill with him”. He would like to address the
problems he has had with the leadership of his department, but, like Femi above, he does not feel
psychologically safe in doing so: “I feel like my supervisor’s supervisors, they seem to be really
close, so I definitely don’t feel comfortable bringing that up the food chain.” Anthony fears that,
if he conveys his concerns to leadership, his supervisor will find out and perhaps engage in some
kind of retaliation. This lack of psychological safety is not conducive to a civil working
environment. In contrast to interviewees like Anthony who addressed the topics of trust and
psychological safety by describing their personal experiences, other interviewees talked about
people in general across their organizations.
Cultural Observations About Psychological Safety and Trust. As an HR professional
who works with people across her university, Bianca was able to offer a broad perspective on
psychological safety and trust:
So, just what I see as a repeated theme, unfortunately, is a lack of psychological safety
where there isn’t a lot of trust either with the managers and their team where an employee
would feel comfortable speaking out if either the manager’s treating them, something
came across wrong, or another team member’s being inappropriate, or they just don’t feel
129

safe, or they feel they’re going to deal with retaliation if they speak up. So, sadly, that’s
just a lot of the interventions that we’ve been utilizing we’ve used repeatedly because it’s
the same situation coming up over and over again in various departments across the
university.
Part of Bianca’s job is to work with employees who are experiencing incivility and other issues
in their schools or departments. These employees come to her because they are fearful of
complaining to their supervisors or to their local leadership teams. This repeated pattern of
people feeling psychologically unsafe and mistrustful paints a damning picture of the
organization’s culture. Ella also sees a similar pattern more locally with people she interacts with
in her school:
So, a lot of people prefer to just complain about it behind the scenes, but they want to be
perceived as a team player, positive, whatever. So, they don’t want to go there. Do you
know what I’m saying? So, in that way, I would say that there are some people who just
don’t feel safe about this.
Instead of raising issues with their supervisors or with leadership, many people in Ella’s school
choose to vent with their colleagues. This is due, in part, to a lack of psychological safety in the
environment. People feel that they will be stigmatized and seen as troublemakers if they
complain.
Kea also sees a lack of trust and psychological safety within her school, and she attributes
it to how disconnected the school’s different departments are from each other: “You can see that
there’s a lack of trust or psychological safety by how siloed every unit is.” Departments do not
trust each other, and the school’s culture is suffused with an “us and them” mentality. In Kea’s
view, this cultural fragmentation can be attributed to the lack of leadership provided by the dean:
130

“It does require everyone to be able to look in a direction, but we have a dean who doesn’t really
offer any direction… If we don’t trust the thing in front of us, we will find something else to
trust.” Because nobody has faith in the Dean’s leadership, and because everybody needs to trust
in something, each department pursues its own course and ends up becoming disconnected from
the other departments. These departmental silos are not conducive to the nurturing of trust and
psychological safety, and they do not lay a foundation for civility.
Summary of Findings for Higher Education Institutions Needing to Foster a Culture of Trust
and Psychological Safety
In summary, analysis of the interview data revealed that half of the interviewees felt
positively about trust and psychological safety in their organizations, while the other half had a
more negative perspective on these two phenomena. The former group spoke favorably about the
efforts put in by their institutions and their leaders to foster a trustful and psychologically safe
culture, with one participant talking about his own efforts in this regard. In the latter group, some
participants spoke about their personal difficulties with raising concerns to their supervisors,
while others talked about issues with trust and psychological safety at their organizations more
generally. Overall, because six of the twelve participants reported significant issues with trust
and psychological safety at their institutions, this organizational influence is considered to be a
need rather than an asset.
Higher Education Institutions Need to Provide Resources, Support, and Training for Staff
to Manage and Cope With the Impacts of an Uncivil Work Environment (O-3, Need)
Chapter 2 described several examples of factors that can mitigate the negative impact of
experiencing workplace incivility. Emotional intelligence, mindfulness, and coworker support
can act as buffers that reduce the amount of job dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, and depression
131

that people suffer when they are treated uncivilly (Chen & Wang, 2019; Geldart et al., 2015;
Tarraf et al., 2019). In addition, it is likely that other kinds of resources, support and training
offered by organizations can help people cope with uncivil treatment. Analysis of the interview
data in the current study revealed that three of the 12 administrative staff felt that their
organizations provided adequate help with managing the impact of incivility. Conversely, nine of
the interviewees felt that their organizations were wholly or partially lacking in this regard.
Organizations That Do a Good Job of Supporting Staff
For the three people who regarded their organizations as doing a good job of supporting
staff, counseling, coaching and an effective human resources function were factors identified as
contributing to that positive effort. Ella described a plethora of services available to her as an
employee:
We have the [office dedicated to employee support]. There are a ton of resources here
that can help with things like that. There’s counseling services. There’s help for just
about anything you could need. Financial help, childcare help, mental health help. We
have [a wellbeing program], which is all around wellbeing. A whole organization devoted
to, social, emotional, financial, mental, physical wellbeing. So, there’s a lot of
resources… I take advantage of a lot of that.
Ella’s university appears to have considered all the ways in which staff might need assistance,
such as counseling, financial help, and a general wellbeing program. As a result, Ella feels well
supported by the organization. Furthermore, she uses many of the services on offer to help her
cope with the stress caused by the incivility she experiences in her job.
Helen also feels supported by her institution, specifically with regard to counseling and
coaching:
132

What the university does offer, typically, in these situations, and it’s why I'm now
working with a professional coach, is that they do have two things. They have a
counselor on campus that you can work with to work through some issues, and I have
actually worked with that person. But it’s limited, you only have five sessions with that
person for one topic. And then you also have five, I think it’s five sessions, working with
a professional coach who is basically helping you with navigating whatever work
situation you are trying to navigate. It has been, for me, actually a really good experience
working with the coach that I’m working with.
While Helen has taken advantage of the counseling and coaching offerings provided by her
university in order to help her manage the incivility she experiences and witnesses in her team,
she acknowledges that the number of sessions on offer is limited. However, although Helen
regards this limitation as reducing the effectiveness of counseling, she does not believe it has this
effect on coaching. On the contrary, she feels that coaching has been particularly helpful for her
in managing the civility issues in her team.
Carlton did not talk about counseling, coaching, or other organizational initiatives.
However, he did make general reference to the helpfulness of the university’s HR team in
general. In addition, he highlighted the support offered to people by the dean of his school: “Staff
are able to work with me or members of the HR team centrally if they feel there has been a
situation of disrespect. The Dean is also available for staff members.” Because Carlton’s
organization is a nursing school, and because nursing attracts people who care about others, he
feels that the faculty, staff, and leadership do a good job of offering support on those rare
occasions where people experience incivility.

133

Organizations That Need to Do More to Support Staff
In contrast to Ella, Helen, and Carlton, who all spoke positively about the support shown
by their organizations for staff who experience incivility, the other nine interviewees expressed
the view that their organizations did not do enough to help their employees. Some of these
interviewees focused on problems with their HR departments, some spoke about the need for
people to look after each other at the local level in response to a lack of organizational support,
and some framed the issue as a lack of communication about what was available.
Problematic HR Departments. As discussed earlier, Dana went to HR in response to
the problems she was experiencing with her supervisor. However, she had a bad experience with
the department that led to her no longer trusting them. She then sought out guidance from the
university ombudsperson, but she found them unhelpful. As a result, Dana now feels totally
unsupported by the university, and she believes that she has been left to manage her negative
workplace interactions on her own:
And it kind of really highlighted the lack of options for people in my position at the
university. I basically just had to wait it out, was kind of the only option available to me
or leave my employment. And I refused to be beaten by that person. That was the choice
I made. I wasn't going to let that person win. And so, I just kept performing, right? But
there was a cost. There was a cost psychologically, emotionally, physically to that
behavior.
Dana recognizes that, by continuing to perform in a toxic work environment and not let her
supervisor force her out of her job, she endured serious negative consequences. Because the
organization did not help her cope with these consequences, she ended up in hospital.
134

Although Femi’s experiences of workplace incivility have been less numerous and severe
than Dana’s, Femi also expressed dissatisfaction with the resources available at her university to
help her cope in the aftermath of uncivil interactions. HR is the only such support mechanism,
but Femi does not find them to be effective. In addition, she fears retaliation for going to them
with her problems: “We would probably go to human resources, and we’ve thought about it…
but at this point it’s just a matter of having the courage and because we’re afraid of backlash.”
By contrast with Dana and Femi, who focused on HR specifically in their comments, a number
of interviewees spoke of experiencing a lack of organizational support more generally for
dealing with the negative effects of incivility.
Lack of Support for Coping With Incivility. For those interviewees who feel
unsupported by their organizations, whatever support they do experience in the workplace exists
only at the local level through relationships with their coworkers. When Anthony felt
disrespected and disregarded by his supervisor, he sought some comfort outside his organization,
but this comfort came primarily from his team members:
The way I responded was by seeking other people’s opinions on that particular comment
because I didn’t have anywhere to go, I felt, within the organization to get that validated
or invalidated. So, I looked for external ways of addressing that problem… With my
coworkers, honestly, I think it’s offering support, celebrating accomplishments.
The close friendships Anthony has developed with the people he works next to every day
enabled him to overcome the dispiriting and demotivating effect of being treated uncivilly by his
supervisor. The support his team members offered him acted as a buffer against this
mistreatment and allowed him to continue caring about the job.
135

Gabriela also expressed the view that her organization had little to offer in the way of
supporting people who experience civility problems at work. Instead, as Anthony did, staff look
to those in their immediate environment for help with managing their distress and discomfort:
I think people are going to find their peer counselors. They’re going to find the people
that they can talk to amongst their colleagues. And maybe it’s got nothing to do with the
institution. Maybe the institution doesn’t really have anything to offer.
People naturally lean on their coworkers for support instead of seeking help from the
organization, and Gabriela speculates that this might be because there is nothing available at the
organizational level.
Kea offered a similarly negative but more demonstrative assessment of the support
offered by her university: “In terms of coping, I mean, a lot of coping has just, I think it’s more
on a local level, there’s no organizational ways of coping.” For Kea, like Anthony and Gabriela,
support from the employee’s immediate circle of coworkers fills the organizational vacuum and
helps them cope with the detrimental consequences of incivility. In Lexi’s case, this support
comes from a positive relationship with her supervisor:
She is very helpful in helping me address directly something… If I’m having an issue
with someone or struggling with those feelings, like how can I directly confront that and
get my point across and not let that stuff sit and ruminate.
In the department she previously worked in at her university, Lexi had many more experiences of
incivility and felt totally unsupported by the university and by the people around her. As
described earlier, these experiences were enough to make her take a more junior job in a
different department. When she does experience interpersonal issues now, she is able to turn to
her supervisor for the support that the organization has never offered. While most of the
136

interviewees who described shortcomings in the support offered by their organizations spoke
either about problems with what was offered or about a complete absence of any offerings, two
interviewees framed the issue as a lack of communication.
Lack of Communication About Organizational Offerings. Bianca and Julia
acknowledged that some coping resources are offered by their universities, but information about
them is minimal and vague. Bianca expressed uncertainty about who exactly she would turn to if
she needed help, despite working in her university’s central HR department:
I don’t think, and again, for myself, and I’m in a role or am in a more university HR and I
wouldn’t know who to go to, who’s the person I… or what is the entity that we… what
are the steps taken to get this kind of support and then assistance. So, I think that would
be helpful because there are people there, teams, and I don’t think anybody really knows
of this.
Not only did Bianca convey her uncertainty directly by saying that she did not know where she
would turn in a moment of need, but she also conveyed this uncertainty indirectly through the
fragmentary nature of her speech. Although Julia also had trouble thinking of what her university
offered in the way of support, she did come up with one specific example of a service available
to employees. However, when she once tried to use the service having seen it on a noticeboard,
she found that it had been discontinued:
The only thing that I can think of is something that they have posted in the break rooms,
which now none of us go to break rooms anymore, because we’re all remote. But it’s
something like the ERP or I don’t even remember what it stands for, but you can go see
somebody about something that you’re experiencing that’s work related. That’s the only
thing I know of. And actually, when I tried looking at the number in the break room and
137

writing it down and then contacting that person, it turns out that that entity was no longer
assigned or working with [my institution]. So, they hadn’t even updated any of their
paperwork or postings or anything like that.
For Bianca and Julia, their universities may offer resources, but they are not well communicated,
and people are not aware of them. In the one case of a service that Julia was able to remember, it
was no longer available.
Summary of Findings for Higher Education Institutions Needing to Provide Resources,
Support, and Training for Staff
In summary, three of the administrative staff who were interviewed spoke positively
about the support offered to employees by their organizations. This support took the form of
counseling, coaching, wellbeing programs, and conversations with school leadership. By
contrast, nine interviewees expressed negative sentiments about their organizations’
supportiveness. Some interviewees had problems with HR’s offerings, others spoke of leaning on
their coworkers to fill the organizational support gap, and others talked of a lack of awareness of
what might be available. Because nine of the 12 interviewees expressed these negative
sentiments, this influence is considered to be a need rather than an asset.
Higher Education Institutions Need to Offer Staff Regular Opportunities to Discuss Civility
in Their Workgroups (O-4, Need)
As discussed in Chapter 2, the primary success factor in the CREW civility intervention
that was implemented across the VHA was the facilitation of weekly, workgroup-level
discussions about civility by trained practitioners (Osatuke et al., 2009). These formal
conversations included employees in a participatory effort to foster a more civil culture. Leiter et
al. (2011), who implemented the CREW intervention with nurses in Canada, validated that
138

participatory employee discussions were an important ingredient of the intervention’s success.
Because of the importance of workgroup discussions in increasing civility within organizations,
it is suggested that organizations should offer opportunities for such discussions to take place.
Analysis of the interview data in the current study showed that three of the 12 administrative
staff who participated felt that their organizations offered regular opportunities for discussing
civility in their workgroups. Conversely, nine of the staff felt that their organizations offered
little in the way of support for such discussions.
Organizations That Support Workgroup Discussions of Civility
Bianca, Ella, and Lexi all described different ways in which their organizations support
workgroup discussions about civility. Bianca works for a central HR department that provides
this service to teams around the university:
We have trained facilitators and we just provide a space… where they can connect with
other people and kind of talk through, and again, if not building that trust and rapport that
they need with their manager, or their team, at least having someone in their organization
that they feel comfortable and they’re providing that space, and to let them know that
we’re aware of issues, we can’t fix everything, but we’re trying to build that culture of
inclusivity and psychological safety.
Bianca actively oversees the organization of facilitated conversations about civility issues. She
acknowledges that these conversations are not the cure for all a team’s problems, but she feels
optimistic that arranging them is pushing team civility cultures in the right direction.
By contrast, Ella spoke of discussions that happen within her department in the context of
DEI committee meetings:
139

We have had some discussions on a formal basis because we have a DEI committee as
part of the department. And the department recently named a DEI chair. And so, we’ve
tried to bring up some of this stuff as part of those meetings, certainly as it relates to the
inclusion part of DEI. So there have been some formal discussions in that forum, but
nothing’s really moved forward or anything yet.
Ella feels that these discussions address the topic of civility indirectly via the broader theme of
inclusion. Although Ella recognizes the value of the discussions, she notes that progress in
improving the culture has been minimal because the committee has only met a few times so far.
Like Bianca and Ella, Lexi experiences formal discussions about culture and civility with
her coworkers. However, in Lexi’s department, these discussions take the form of workshops
that are facilitated by external consultants:
We have had multiple workshops. We have a consultant that comes in several times a
year that is used by industry… that comes in to talk about it and put at the forefront, what
are our values and are we staying true to them in terms of student success… Because we
can all get caught up in the crap and the negativity, especially right now with everything
that’s going on in the world. So again, tending to it and taking an entire day, making
everybody pull the day to actually do some of this and get all 25 people together in one
room and talk about it.
Lexi’s supervisor spends significant time and energy on nurturing the department’s culture. One
of the ways she does this is by bringing in consultants with whom she worked at her previous job
in industry. From Lexi’s perspective, these frequent opportunities to sit in a room and discuss
culture with her workmates are a valuable catalyst for civility maintenance and improvement.

140

Organizations That Could Do More to Support Workgroup Discussions About Civility
While three of the interviewees described having sufficient opportunities to discuss
civility in their workgroups, the remaining nine interviewees described a lack of such
opportunities. For some of these interviewees, there were no discussions of civility at work at all.
For others, such discussions occurred despite there being no formal organizational support for
them.
Complete Absence of Discussions About Civility. Carlton, Anthony, and Femi reported
no conversations about civility occurring at all within their institutions. For Carlton, whose
organization does not have significant issues with incivility, these conversations have not been
necessary: “We haven’t had conversations on workplace manners or civility. We’re a small team,
so it hasn’t been an issue. We all get along reasonably well, so, no, we haven’t had those formal
conversations.” By contrast, Anthony feels that it is necessary for people in his work
environment to discuss civility, but it still does not happen:
I feel like this is the first work environment where that really isn’t discussed. Yeah. No,
we don’t… You know what’s interesting through this conversation is that from my
perspective our team isn’t intentional about it or it just doesn’t seem that there’s much
thought into developing the culture rather than just having the culture develop on its own.
Anthony feels that his current organization needs to be more active generally in fostering a
positive workplace culture, as happened at all his previous organizations. Femi expressed a
similar view about her university:
And I really think that there should be a platform for staff and administrators where we
are getting training, seminars on how to treat each other, how to have a safe environment
where difficult topics are being discussed.
141

Femi’s university does little to promote civility discussions or to foster civility more broadly, and
Femi feels that this is an organizational shortcoming.
At this point, it is instructive to note that even if an organization does provide the kind of
resources mentioned by Femi, that does not necessarily mean that employees will find those
resources useful. Gabriela’s comments about her own university illustrate this: “Human
resources offers little courses in how to have difficult conversations. I just find their resources
very canned. They just seem really generic. And I don’t take advantage of them.” Gabriela’s
organization recognizes the importance of giving staff the skills and the space to discuss civility
and other related topics, but the training provided does not meet Gabriela’s needs. The remaining
interviewees who expressed dissatisfaction with their organizations’ lack of effort in fostering
civility discussions focused on other outlets they had developed independently to discuss civility
with their colleagues.
Civility Discussions Occurring Despite a Lack of Organizational Support. In the
absence of any formal organizational offerings, Kea, Julia, and Idris discuss civility with their
coworkers. In Kea’s case, she frequently talks to her supervisor and her two direct reports:
I speak with my team and my supervisor regularly (these days we meet three times a
week, due to work from home), and we would discuss situations where we had to deal
with rude customers and what we can do about them. But there’s nothing in terms of any
actions taken by my leadership or organization.
Because Kea is an IT manager, much of the discussion of civility centers on how customers treat
her and her staff. Idris, who also oversees an IT department at his university, reflected on the
conversations he has with his group when situations arise either within the group or with
customers:
142

In a practical sense, what’s most often been successful for myself and my group is when
particular situations occur then we use them as teachable moments, whether it’s in the
moment with them, with that group, or individually, or I’ll bring it up as part of a group
discussion.
Rather than treat these conversations merely as a chance for people to vent, Idris views them as
an opportunity for his team members to learn something about themselves and each other.
For Julia, who meets once a month with a circle of coworkers, the focus is on the
relationship between employees and leadership:
We’ll go meet at a winery once a month and that’s about 80% of our conversation is
about how poor the relationship between the administration and the non-administration is.
It’s bifurcated the university into an us versus them. It’s cathartic. At least it doesn’t
make me feel like this problem is mine and mine alone and that I’m the hysterical woman
or the crazy person always complaining or the one that’s always having the problem at
work with people. It lets me know that it’s not just me facing these problems, that I’m not
on this island alone.
Even though these discussions are not arranged or facilitated formally by her university, Julia
appreciates them as an opportunity for people to share their experiences of incivility and to
support each other in coping with mistreatment.
Helen and Dana also seek out their own opportunities to discuss incivility, but these
discussions happen beyond the confines of their immediate teams. Helen meets once a month
with her peers across the university:
I don’t think that we have any formal conversations, but I definitely have a support
network on campus. It’s a lot of the other advising directors across the school and we
143

meet once a month, just us, and a lot of that is talking about some of the challenges that
we’re experiencing and trying to help each other with navigating any issues that we’re
having on campus. So definitely informally, I am having those conversations with people.
In staying connected with this group of fellow directors who all experience similar workplace
issues, Helen can draw from a well of valuable empathy and support. Similarly, Dana engages
with a group of her peers around the university and has “pretty deep dive conversations about
experiences we’ve had. And so, I think when trust is built, you’re able to have these
conversations, but there just isn’t an infrastructure for them, really.” For Dana, discussions about
incivility have emerged organically from the close relationships she has built with her peers.
However, she acknowledges that the organization does not provide any kind of formal
foundation or platform for these discussions.
Summary of Findings for Higher Education Institutions Needing to Offer Staff Regular
Opportunities to Discuss Civility in Their Workgroups
In summary, three of the administrative staff who were interviewed spoke positively
about the opportunities their organizations provided them to discuss civility in their workgroups.
These discussions were catalyzed by HR, a DEI committee, or an external consultant. By
contrast, nine interviewees expressed negative views of their organizations’ involvement in
fostering civility discussions. Some interviewees described a lack of any such discussions
happening and a need for them. Others described conversations they had with either groups of
their immediate coworkers or people elsewhere in their organizations. However, these
conversations were employee-led and did not arise because of any organizational intervention.
Because nine of the 12 interviewees conveyed a lack of organizational involvement in creating
144

opportunities for civility discussions in their institutions, this influence is considered to be a need
rather than an asset.
Higher Education Institutions Need to Hold All Employees Accountable for Uncivil
Behavior (O-5, Newly Identified Need)
When incivility goes unchecked, it has negative impacts on those who experience and
witness it. One of these negative impacts is an increase in the likelihood that a person
experiencing or witnessing incivility will behave uncivilly themselves (Foulk et al., 2016; Reich
& Hershcovis, 2015; Torkelson et al., 2016). In order to prevent this contagion from further
reducing civility, higher education institutions need to take active measures to stamp out
incivility. However, analysis of the interview data revealed an impediment to such efforts that is
peculiar to higher education environments. Of the 12 administrative staff who were interviewed,
nine commented on faculty incivility and the lack of accountability faced by faculty who behave
uncivilly.
Faculty as Primary Instigators of Incivility
Six interviewees saw faculty as being the primary initiators of incivility within their
universities. When Gabriela was asked where most incivility came from in her institution, she
responded, “Oh, definitely from faculty. Rarely from staff. Rarely and never from students.” Kea
reflected more expansively on the same phenomenon:
There’s definitely more of a structure within like “we’re the faculty” because they are
divas and superstars or whatever, in many cases that they don’t want to even respond to
you unless you call them professor or whatever, or doctor or whatever, that kind of thing.
Kea describes how many of the faculty at her school will not engage with staff unless staff
address them using their academic titles. Kea attributes this behavior to a sense of superiority
145

that the faculty have developed because of success and fame in their jobs. At Julia’s institution,
faculty engage with staff but some of them do so rudely and disrespectfully:
I mean, you have some people who will just send angry emails in a professional sense,
but let you know how much they hate you and how worthless they think that you are, but
they’re professionally done because it’s faculty, right?
These faculty express their anger and disdain for staff, but they do so via email and with a veneer
of professionalism. Like Julia, Dana has experienced and witnessed the faculty at her institution
mistreating staff, but she has also seen faculty treat students this way:
So, a lot of what I’ve experienced has been managing incivility and toxic environments at
[my institution] for me personally and also witnessing kind of abuses of power, both
between faculty and staff as well as between faculty and students.
Both Lexi and Ella see a connection between longevity and faculty incivility. Lexi
considers tenured faculty who have been at her university for decades to be the most uncivil:
Faculty can be some of, I’m just being honest, some of the worst. Some of them are great,
but some of them, I mean, so… and especially faculty who have been in their role for 20
years and are tenured.
Ella focuses specifically on the age and resulting power of those faculty who are most
problematic to interact with:
A lot of the older faculty, the chair, they’re in charge and they’ve been here. No, they
don’t get it. And they quite honestly don’t care. Because when I try to explain… And
they do it purposefully. They really don’t care.
These older faculty run Ella’s department and they see no reason why they should be respectful
in how they interact with the staff who report to them. They assign big tasks and expect them to
146

be handled immediately regardless of whatever else Ella or her colleagues are working on. This
disregard persists even when Ella explains her dissatisfaction. For her, this lack of willingness to
change is an indication that faculty disrespect staff intentionally. In addition to reflecting
generally on faculty incivility, several interviewees spoke about the lack of accountability in the
organization that allows this behavior to continue.
Lack of Faculty Accountability
Idris acknowledges that the incivility he experiences comes from faculty, especially those
with tenure:
In my experience it comes from faculty. Often, by and large, it’s tenured track faculty. I
think that there is a cultural norm in higher education that I have come to know in my 14
years in higher education that faculty who are tenured believe they have the right to speak
to anyone the way they wish and there are no consequences to them because they cannot
be fired. That’s their perception.
Idris regards the root of the incivility to be the cultural norm in higher education of protecting
tenured faculty regardless of their behavior. Furthermore, he suggests that this norm of not
holding faculty accountable for behaving uncivilly can lead to a permissiveness in the
organization that results in staff behaving in that way:
If someone is continually being nasty, mean, rude, deliberate attacks, regardless of
position, they need to be held accountable for that because otherwise, for me and my
viewpoint, it starts creating a toxic culture and then other people say, ‘Well, this person
gets away with it. What’s so special about them? I can do whatever I want too.”
For Idris, faculty incivility that goes unchecked sows the seeds of incivility contagion.
147

In her role as an HR professional in her university’s central HR department, Bianca sees
not just a lack of faculty accountability for incivility, but a resistance from faculty to undergo
any kind of training to improve their interpersonal and managerial skills:
And unfortunately, one of the big issues that I’ve seen at the university and the previous
university that I worked at is that when it’s a staff position, but it’s filled by a tenured
faculty, where it’s very hard to have as far as making changes, like either this person’s
been at the university for decades, and again, they’re in a tenured position, they’re
protected, that we’d suggest certain types of training or anything else to help them maybe
be a better manager, and a lot of times we keep a lot of push back, so that’s where I’ve
felt we’ve had some of our biggest challenges.
The most problematic faculty identified by Bianca fit a profile that has already been described by
other interviewees. Tenure and length of service at the institution are, for Bianca, predictive of a
resistance to training and professional development. These faculty are untouchable and can
behave however they want, which makes life difficult for the HR staff who are tasked with
addressing incivility when teams complain about it.
One interviewee, Carlton, did talk about the existence of faculty accountability, but only
in historic terms:
For a long time, our current dean had civility as a criteria for merit reviews in the spring.
And some faculty didn’t appreciate that because they didn’t mind being uncivil and
thought they should be just judged on publications and teaching.
In Carlton’s school, accountability for uncivil behavior used to be managed by the inclusion of a
civility metric in the annual merit review process. However, because of faculty resistance to the
idea of being assessed on this criterion, it was eventually dropped from the process and faculty
148

became, once again, untouchable. Dana also spoke about faculty performance management at her
institution, noting that civility is not evaluated:
I think certain individuals that are unchecked when it comes to hierarchies and power
who don’t have enough either self-awareness or empathetic capacity or leadership
training, can kind of run awry if they’re not checked. And I think in higher education
faculty in particular, they are a product of a system that doesn’t enforce or hold
accountable issues such as this, because it’s not part of the performance management
system at an institution like ours.
In Dana’s view, those faculty who behave uncivilly do so because of a lack of emotional
intelligence or leadership prowess. Against a backdrop of a permissive higher education culture
when it comes to faculty, the organization makes no attempt to assess these skills or hold faculty
accountable for improving them.
Summary of Findings on Higher Education Institutions Needing to Hold All Employees
Accountable for Uncivil Behavior
In summary, nine of the 12 interviewees spoke specifically about the problem of faculty
incivility. In addition, several interviewees talked about a lack of accountability that results in
faculty incivility going unchecked, in some cases creating an environment in which staff feel
they can behave uncivilly too. Analysis of the data suggests, accordingly, that organizations need
to hold all employees accountable for uncivil behavior if workplace civility is to be increased.
Summary of Findings for Organizational Influences
Chapter 2 described four organizational influences that are assumed to be necessary for
administrative staff in higher education institutions to demonstrate civility in the workplace. The
first proposes that institutions need to foster a civil working environment. The second suggests
149

that institutions also need to foster psychological safety and trust. The third influence proposes
that higher education institutions need to provide resources, support, and training for staff to help
them manage and cope with the negative impacts of an uncivil workplace. The fourth influence
suggests that institutions need to offer staff regular opportunities to discuss civility in their
workgroups. In addition, analysis of the interview data brought to light a fifth need, namely that
higher education institutions need to hold all employees accountable for uncivil behavior.
Analysis of the data revealed that between six and nine of the 12 interviewees made
remarks indicating shortcomings of their organizations with respect to the four assumed
organizational influences. As a result, all four organizational influences can be characterized as
needs rather than assets. In addition, the newly identified need was validated by comments from
nine interviewees.
Summary of Needs and Assets
This chapter presented an analysis of data from interviews with 12 administrative staff in
higher education institutions in order to establish what is required to increase workplace civility
in such institutions. This analysis indicated that all three assumed knowledge influences and all
four assumed motivation influences should be considered assets rather than needs. With respect
to knowledge assets, staff understand what incivility and civility are, they appreciate the negative
effects that experiencing incivility can have, and they are aware of and are able to reflect on their
own behaviors. With respect to motivation assets, staff believe in their ability to behave civilly at
work, they see others around them modeling civility, they regard civility as an important
component of their success at work, and they experience positive emotions about aspects of their
jobs.
150

Conversely, all four assumed organizational influences were found to be needs rather
than assets. More specifically, in order to increase workplace civility, higher education
institutions need to: foster a civil working environment; promote a culture of trust and
psychological safety; provide support, resources and training to help staff manage the experience
of incivility and its negative effects; and offer staff the opportunity to discuss civility in their
workgroups. In addition, a fifth organizational need emerged from the analysis: higher education
institutions also need to hold employees accountable for uncivil behavior. Chapter 5 addresses all
five organizational needs and presents evidence-based recommendations for the design of a
civility program along with a plan for implementing and evaluating the program in higher
education contexts.
In conclusion, it is notable that all the knowledge and motivation influences were assets
for the administrative staff who were interviewed, while the organizational influences were
found to be needs. What this finding suggests is that the interviewees viewed others in the
organization as being the problem rather than themselves. This raises the question of who exactly
is responsible for incivility in an institution, a topic that is flagged for future research at the end
of the next chapter.

151

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Chapter Four presented findings about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact workplace incivility and civility in higher education institutions. This
chapter begins by summarizing those findings. The chapter continues by proposing a set of
recommendations that are derived from the findings and that are based on the research literature.
Next, the proposed recommendations are aggregated into a design for a civility program that can
be implemented in higher education environments. The chapter then discusses the limitations and
delimitations of the research study before concluding with a set of recommendations for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore how workplace civility can be increased in
higher education institutions. In Chapter Two, Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework
was used as the vehicle for defining a set of knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
that were assumed to impact workplace incivility and workplace civility. These influences
formed the basis of the first two research questions that guided this study:
● What are the knowledge and skills, and motivation needs that must be considered when
designing a program that decreases workplace incivility and increases workplace civility
for administrative staff in higher education institutions?
● How do organizational culture and context support or hinder workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher education institutions?
In order to answer these questions, 12 administrative staff in American universities were
interviewed and the resulting data were analyzed. As described in Chapter 4, the data analysis
indicated that all three knowledge influences were assets rather than needs for the interviewees.
152

All interviewees had significant experiences of workplace incivility and civility and
demonstrated a nuanced understanding of both phenomena. In addition, they all appreciated the
various negative effects that incivility can have on people who are on the receiving end of it,
with most interviewees describing their own experiences in this regard. Finally, all interviewees
demonstrated self-awareness and an ability to reflect on their own conduct in workplace
interactions. The data analysis also showed that all four motivation influences were assets rather
than needs for the interviewees. All interviewees felt capable of behaving civilly at work and
most of them were able to identify people who modeled civility in their institutions. All
interviewees regarded civility as an essential component of success in their jobs, and all were
able to point to positive aspects of their jobs.
Conversely, all four organizational influences were found to be needs rather than assets.
Most interviewees felt that their organizations could do more to promote civility in the
workplace, and half of them thought that their institutions did not sufficiently foster trust and
psychological safety. In addition to the four assumed organizational influences that were
identified during the study design, another need emerged during the data analysis. Most
participants spoke about certain faculty members at their universities behaving uncivilly and not
being held accountable for their behavior. The five organizational needs that were confirmed
during data analysis are shown in Table 9.

153

Table 9
Summary of Organizational Needs
Organizational influence Need Newly identified need
Higher education institutions need to
foster a civil working environment.
X
Higher education institutions need to
foster a culture of psychological
safety and trust in order to lay the
groundwork for a civil working
environment.
X
Higher education institutions need to
provide resources, support, and
training for administrative staff to
manage and cope with the impacts of
an uncivil work environment.
X
Higher education institutions need to
offer administrative staff regular
opportunities to discuss civility in
their workgroups.
X
Higher education institutions need to
hold all employees accountable for
uncivil behavior.
X

Recommendations for Practice
This study was guided by a third research question that has not yet been addressed: What
are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational resources that can drive the design of a program that increases
workplace civility and decreases workplace incivility for administrative staff at higher education
institutions?
In order to answer this question, this section presents a set of eight recommendations for
practice that are drawn from the research literature. Seven of these recommendations are based
154

upon the organizational needs that were confirmed during data analysis. Although all the
assumed knowledge and motivation influences were found to be assets for the administrative
staff who were interviewed, it is reasonable to assume that these influences could be regarded as
needs for other administrative staff or for different stakeholders in an organization. Because self-
awareness is an important component of the successful CREW civility intervention (Osatuke et
al., 2009; Leiter et al., 2011), the eighth recommendation is based upon the knowledge influence
that relates to self-awareness, namely that administrative staff need to know and be able to reflect
on their behaviors in order to maximize civility in the workplace. However, in line with the
CREW intervention, this recommendation is applicable not just to administrative staff, but to the
other two groups of employees who are stakeholders: faculty and leadership. In addition, because
this need relates to all employees in the organization and because it should be addressed at the
organizational level, it is presented as a sixth organizational need for the purposes of making
recommendations: Higher education institutions need to train employees to become more self-
aware.
The six organizational needs that form the basis of the recommendations for practice in
this section are as follows:
1. Higher education institutions need to foster a civil working environment.
2. Higher education institutions need to foster a culture of psychological safety and
trust in order to lay the groundwork for a civil working environment.
3. Higher education institutions need to provide resources, support, and training for
administrative staff to manage and cope with the impacts of an uncivil work
environment.
155

4. Higher education institutions need to offer administrative staff regular
opportunities to discuss civility in their workgroups.
5. Higher education institutions need to hold all employees accountable for uncivil
behavior.
6. Higher education institutions need to train employees to become more self-aware.

Recommendations Based on Organizational Needs
The recommendations for practice that can guide the design and implementation of a
civility program within a higher education institution are all based on organizational needs. As
described above, four of these organizational needs were identified in Chapter 2 and then
validated during data analysis, one need emerged during the analysis, and one need represents an
organizational framing of a knowledge need that was not validated with the stakeholders
interviewed but is assumed to be valid more broadly within an organization. These six
organizational needs, the principles underlying them, and the recommendations they indicate are
shown in Table 10.

156

Table 10
Summary of Organizational Needs and Recommendations
Organizational need Principle and citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a civil
working
environment.
Any effort to increase civility within
an organization must be initiated
and supported at the organizational
level if it is to be successful
(Osatuke et al., 2009). Leaders can
foster civility within their
organization by behaving civilly
themselves (Taylor & Pattie, 2014).
The organization should
develop and socialize a set
of norms for civil behavior
(Spence Laschinger &
Read, 2016; Walsh et al.,
2012). Organization leaders
should model civil
behavior (Clark et al.,
2020).
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a culture of
psychological safety
and trust in order to
lay the groundwork
for a civil working
environment.
The more trust that employees have
in leadership, the greater sense of
wellbeing they experience
(Kelloway et al., 2012). Employees
who feel psychologically safe are
more likely to speak up about
workplace issues and contribute to
the improvement of work processes
and practices (Burris et al., 2008;
Edmonson & Lei, 2014; Liang et
al., 2012).
Organization leaders should
intentionally engage in
leadership behaviors that
have been shown to
engender psychological
safety and trust among
employees (Owens et al.,
2013; Zak, 2017).
Higher education
institutions need to
provide resources,
support, and training
for administrative
staff to manage and
cope with the
impacts of an
uncivil work
environment.
Emotional intelligence, empathy, and
mindfulness can act as buffers
against the negative impact of
experiencing incivility (Chen &
Wang, 2019; Geldart et al., 2015;
Sguera et al., 2016; Tarraf et al.,
2019). Employees who experience
incivility are more likely to treat
others uncivilly, unless the negative
impact of experiencing incivility is
mitigated (Foulk et al., 2019; Loh
& Loi, 2018; Torkelson et al.,
2016; Van Jaarsfeld et al., 2010).
The organization should offer
training in emotional
intelligence, empathy, and
mindfulness to help
employees cope better in
response to experiences of
incivility. In addition, the
organization should give
employees time to practice
mindfulness as part of their
daily routines. (Hurley et
al., 2020; Bartlett et al.,
2017).
157

Organizational need Principle and citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a civil
working
environment.
Any effort to increase civility within
an organization must be initiated
and supported at the organizational
level if it is to be successful
(Osatuke et al., 2009). Leaders can
foster civility within their
organization by behaving civilly
themselves (Taylor & Pattie, 2014).
The organization should
develop and socialize a set
of norms for civil behavior
(Spence Laschinger &
Read, 2016; Walsh et al.,
2012). Organization leaders
should model civil
behavior (Clark et al.,
2020).
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a culture of
psychological safety
and trust in order to
lay the groundwork
for a civil working
environment.
The more trust that employees have
in leadership, the greater sense of
wellbeing they experience
(Kelloway et al., 2012). Employees
who feel psychologically safe are
more likely to speak up about
workplace issues and contribute to
the improvement of work processes
and practices (Burris et al., 2008;
Edmonson & Lei, 2014; Liang et
al., 2012).
Organization leaders should
intentionally engage in
leadership behaviors that
have been shown to
engender psychological
safety and trust among
employees (Owens et al.,
2013; Zak, 2017).
Higher education
institutions need to
offer administrative
staff regular
opportunities to
discuss civility in
their workgroups.
Facilitated employee discussions
about civility are a pivotal factor in
successful civility interventions
(Osatuke et al., 2009).

The organization should ask
all employee workgroups
to host regular discussions
about improving civility
(Osatuke et al., 2009).
Higher education
institutions need to
hold all employees
accountable for
uncivil behavior.
People who experience incivility
avoid addressing it because they
fear retaliation or feel they will
make matters worse (Clark, 2013;
McClendon et al., 2021).
Organizational leaders often do not
take meaningful action when
uncivil behavior is brought to their
attention (Porath & Pearson, 2010).
The organization should
publicize guidance for
employees on how to
address incivility with the
perpetrator when they
experience it (Clark, 2013;
Overton & Lowry, 2013).
The organization should
include a civility dimension
in employee performance
management processes
(Clark & Ritter, 2018;
Clark et al., 2020).
158

Organizational need Principle and citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a civil
working
environment.
Any effort to increase civility within
an organization must be initiated
and supported at the organizational
level if it is to be successful
(Osatuke et al., 2009). Leaders can
foster civility within their
organization by behaving civilly
themselves (Taylor & Pattie, 2014).
The organization should
develop and socialize a set
of norms for civil behavior
(Spence Laschinger &
Read, 2016; Walsh et al.,
2012). Organization leaders
should model civil
behavior (Clark et al.,
2020).
Higher education
institutions need to
foster a culture of
psychological safety
and trust in order to
lay the groundwork
for a civil working
environment.
The more trust that employees have
in leadership, the greater sense of
wellbeing they experience
(Kelloway et al., 2012). Employees
who feel psychologically safe are
more likely to speak up about
workplace issues and contribute to
the improvement of work processes
and practices (Burris et al., 2008;
Edmonson & Lei, 2014; Liang et
al., 2012).
Organization leaders should
intentionally engage in
leadership behaviors that
have been shown to
engender psychological
safety and trust among
employees (Owens et al.,
2013; Zak, 2017).
Higher education
institutions need to
train employees to
become more self-
aware.
If employees are to maximize the
civility with which they treat others
in the workplace, they need to be
aware of their own behavior and the
impact it has on those around them
(Khadjehturian, 2012; Osatuke et
al., 2009).
The organization should
implement a peer coaching
strategy among employees
(Ladyshewsky, 2017).

As indicated in Table 10, a number of the recommendations involve organization leaders.
Exactly which leaders to engage will depend on the size and structure of the institution in
question. In the case of smaller universities, these organization leaders are likely to be part of the
central administration (e.g., president, provost, vice provosts, etc.) For larger, more federated
universities, the appropriate organizational leaders are likely to be situated at the school level
159

(e.g., dean, vice deans, associate deans, etc.) or department level (e.g., senior vice presidents,
vice presidents, associate vice presidents, etc.)
Recommendation 1: The Organization Should Develop and Socialize a Set of Norms for Civil
Behavior
The findings of this study indicate that higher education institutions need to do more to
foster civility. One way that institutions can do this is by developing a set of norms for civil
behavior and ensuring that everybody in the organization is aware of them. Norms have been
shown to be effective in reducing civility within groups. Walsh et al. (2012) found that
government employees reported experiencing less incivility from coworkers and supervisors
when norms were present within the workgroup. Similarly, Spence Laschinger and Read (2016)
observed that newly graduated nurses experienced less incivility when their leaders implemented
norms across teams.
Incivility scholars agree that leaders set the tone of interpersonal conduct in an
organization, and, for this reason, they should be the ones responsible for defining a set of
behavioral standards and communicating these standards to everybody in the organization
(Porath & Pearson, 2010; Walsh et al., 2012). However, leadership and incivility scholars have
noted that it is important to engage stakeholders in the process when making any change in order
to maximize the chances of the change effort succeeding (Burke, 2018; Gedro & Wang, 2013;
Osatuke et al., 2009). This is especially true in higher education institutions that typically have
complex organizational structures, numerous competing stakeholder groups, and unclear goal
structures (Williams et al., 2005). Accordingly, the recommendation is that the process of
defining norms should be a collaborative one involving stakeholders beyond just leaders.
160

Porath (2018) offers a concrete example of such an exercise that she facilitated with a law
firm in Orange County, California. Working with the managing partner of the firm, she helped a
group of employees through the process of defining ten norms that they were all willing to
espouse:
● We greet and acknowledge each other.
● We say please and thank you.
● We treat each other equally and with respect, no matter the conditions.
● We acknowledge the impact of our behavior on others.
● We welcome feedback from each other.
● We are approachable.
● We are direct, sensitive, and honest.
● We acknowledge the contributions of others.
● We respect each other’s time commitments.
● We address incivility.
The ten norms were then publicized as the company’s civility code and displayed for all to see in
the building lobby. The company subsequently was awarded the top spot in Orange County’s
Best Places to Work list, and the managing partner attributed this to the norms the company
developed (Porath, 2018).
In summary, the organization’s leadership should convene a group of stakeholders and
work with a professional facilitator to develop a set of civility norms that all stakeholders agree
to uphold. These norms should then be advertised across the organization via website, emails,
social media, and physical posters and flyers.
Recommendation 2: Organization Leaders Should Model Civil Behavior
161

A component of Bandura’s (2005) social cognitive theory (SCT) is social modeling,
which is the process through which people learn by watching others around them in the
environment. SCT would suggest that if a person sees a leader behaving civilly, they are more
likely to adopt that kind of behavior themselves. In support of this supposition, Taylor and Pattie
(2014) found that employees who observed leaders modeling ethical behavior were less likely to
behave uncivilly. Numerous leadership scholars have acknowledged the importance of leaders
setting the tone with their own behavior (Burke, 2018; Schein, 2017; Singh, 2013) and this is
especially true in the case of civility (Porath & Pearson, 2010; Pearson, 2018). As discussed in
Chapter 4, several participants in this study spoke of the beneficial effects on their own behavior
of seeing their leaders treat people well.
The findings just discussed are the basis for the recommendation that higher education
leaders should model civility themselves. In their study of civility in the nursing profession,
Clark et al. (2020), suggest that it is incumbent upon leaders to be “civilists” (p.8). A civilist is
someone who models civility in everything they do. Civilists are respectful, principled, and
responsible, they honor diversity and inclusivity, and they are eager to hear other people’s
perspectives. In order to foster civility, then, it is recommended that higher education leaders
aspire to be civilists by demonstrating these behaviors and by living in accordance with the
organization’s civility norms once developed. Leaders should model civility in all their
interactions within the organization, but this is especially important in team and department
meetings where numerous employees are able to witness leader behavior and potentially learn
from it.
In order to assess and enhance leaders’ effectiveness at behaving civilly, it is proposed
that the organization implement 360-degree assessments for leaders and managers. Such
162

assessments incorporate feedback from multiple people who work with the individual and, when
combined with coaching sessions that help the individual process and respond to the feedback,
can be effective in changing leadership behavior (Dean et al., 2021).
Recommendation 3: Organization Leaders Should Engage in Leadership Behaviors That
Encourage Trust and Psychological Safety
More than 100 studies have found that trust in leadership is associated with various
positive employee behaviors, such as altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and
sportsmanship, and with general wellbeing (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kelloway et al., 2002). In
addition, research has shown that employees who experience psychological safety are more
likely to give voice to their concerns in the workplace and to contribute to discussions about
improving work processes and practices (Burris et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2012). These two sets
of findings suggest that both trust in leadership and psychological safety are likely to be
instrumental in the creation of a more civil work environment.
As described above in the case of modeling civility, leaders set the tone in an
organization (Burke, 2018; Schein, 2017; Singh, 2013). Leadership behavior is also instrumental
in the creation of trustful and psychologically safe work environments. Through a number of
surveys and experiments, Zak (2017) found that the following eight behaviors in particular
increase trust among employees:
● publicly recognizing excellence
● assigning tough but achievable challenges
● giving people discretion in how they do their work
● allowing people to shape their own jobs
● sharing information broadly
163

● building deeper relationships with team members
● helping employees grow professionally and personally
● showing vulnerability
With regard to increasing psychological safety, research has shown that humility is an
important leadership characteristic. In a paper that is frequently cited in studies of humble
leadership, Owens et al. (2013) define humility as: “an interpersonal characteristic that emerges
in social contexts that connotes (a) a manifested willingness to view oneself accurately, (b) a
displayed appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, and (c) teachability” (p. 1518).
Humble leaders admit their mistakes and acknowledge that mistakes are an important part of the
learning process (Owens & Hekman, 2012). They are also open to hearing suggestions and to
receiving feedback (Owens et al., 2013). These leadership behaviors create a supportive,
psychologically safe environment in which people feel comfortable speaking up without fear of
negative consequences (Walters & Diab, 2016; Wang et al., 2018).
In accordance with the research findings just cited about leadership behaviors that
increase trust and psychological safety, it is recommended that higher education leaders adopt
these behaviors in their dealings with employees. In order to catalyze the adoption of these
behaviors, it is proposed that the organization facilitate brief lunch-and-learn training sessions to
educate leaders and managers in a way that is not time-intensive or disruptive to the workday.
These sessions would describe each behavior, provide concrete examples of it in an institutional
context, and convey how beneficial the behaviors are for engendering trust and psychological
safety in employees. In addition, participants could be presented with scenarios illustrating
problematic workplace situations and they could then be invited to discuss how a particular
leadership behavior or set of behaviors might help resolve the issues. In order to elevate the
164

importance of these sessions and maximize attendance at them, the leaders at the very top of the
organization would need to publicize the sessions via a robust communications plan, attend the
sessions themselves, and engage in conversations with their direct reports about the benefits of
the sessions (Schein, 2017).
Just as 360-degree assessments and coaching were recommended above to help leaders
monitor and improve the civil behavior they model, so are both tools potentially useful for
helping leaders successfully adopt behaviors that engender trust and psychological safety (Dean
et al., 2021). By giving leaders an insight into their own behavior as viewed by their teams,
peers, and others in the organization, 360-degree assessments can help leaders accurately
understand how they behave and to what extent this behavior promotes trust and psychological
safety. Once a leader is made aware of any shortcomings they might have in this regard, they can
work actively and intentionally to change their own behavior accordingly. To minimize the
burden on leaders, it is suggested that a single assessment be adopted that combines feedback
items for all of the desired behaviors.
Recommendation 4: The Organization Should Offer Workshops in Emotional Intelligence,
Empathy, and Mindfulness to Help Employees Cope Better in Response to Experiencing
Incivility
Chapter 2 described a number of factors that have been shown to buffer against the
negative impact of experiencing workplace incivility. Emotionally intelligent employees are
better able to maintain their sense of job satisfaction in the face of incivility (Chen & Wang,
2019). Employees who feel supported by their colleagues experience less anxiety and depression
in response to being treated uncivilly (Geldart et al., 2015). Finally, employees who engage in
mindfulness practices feel less stress and are more forgiving in the aftermath of uncivil
165

encounters (Tarraf et al., 2019). These research findings suggest that offering employees
workshops in developing emotional intelligence, building empathy, and practicing mindfulness
would help insulate them against the negative effects of incivility. This outcome would, in turn,
reduce the likelihood of employees perpetuating incivility upon experiencing it, which is a
commonly reported issue in the civility literature (Foulk et al., 2019; Loh & Loi, 2018;
Torkelson et al., 2016; Van Jaarsfeld et al., 2010).
As indicated by a meta-analysis of 28 emotional intelligence (EI) training programs
conducted by Hodzic et al. (2018), there is substantial evidence that training can increase EI. One
particular EI assessment instrument, called the GENOS Emotional Intelligence Inventory, is
designed specifically for use in workplaces as a learning and development aid (Palmer et al.,
2009). GENOS assesses 70 different employee behaviors across seven dimensions: emotional
self-awareness, emotional expression, emotional awareness of others, emotional reasoning,
emotional self-management, emotional management of others, and emotional self-control.
Studies have shown that even brief training interventions using the GENOS model can increase
people’s EI (Hurley et al., 2020; Kozlowski et al., 2018).
In accordance with the Hurley et al. (2020) and Kozlowski et al. (2018) studies cited
above, it is recommended that organizations develop a half-day EI training for all employees
based on the GENOS model. In addition, employees should subsequently be assessed using the
GENOS instrument and given access to the resulting report, which provides detailed feedback
and exercises for continued self-paced reflection and learning. As Hurley et al. (2020)
demonstrated, training people using GENOS can not only increase their EI score on the GENOS
instrument, but it can also increase their feelings of resilience. Moreover, and of particular
166

relevance to this study, GENOS training can result in people feeling greater empathy and
compassion towards others (Hurley et al., 2020).
In addition to EI training, it is recommended that organizations help their employees cope
better with incivility by giving them facilitated opportunities to engage in mindfulness practice.
Although there are no studies specifically investigating the impact of workplace mindfulness
training courses on employees’ ability to cope with incivility, numerous studies have
demonstrated other beneficial effects of such training. Bartlett et al. (2019) carried out a meta-
analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials involving different mindfulness training
implementations and found that, overall, mindfulness training reduced anxiety, psychological
distress, and stress, and improved general wellbeing and sleep.
One of the training implementations included in the meta-analysis is particularly
appropriate for application within higher education environments. This implementation is called
the Mindfulness at Work Program (MaWP) (Bartlett et al., 2017). Not only did the meta-analysis
find MaWP to be one of the most effective programs for reducing employee stress and
psychological distress, but the program does not demand an extensive time commitment from
employees. Compared with the gold standard for mindfulness interventions, Mindfulness-Based
Stress Reduction (Kabat-Zinn et al., 1985), which requires participants to attend two hours of
class every week for ten weeks and to engage in 45 minutes of mindfulness practice every day,
MaWP consists of only five 90-minute classes and 20 minutes of practice each day (Bartlett et
al., 2017). MaWP is based upon material in the self-help book Mindfulness at Work for Dummies
(Alidina & Adams, 2014) and covers five topic areas: understanding mindfulness at work; the
physiology of stress; mindful communication; working with difficult people and strong
emotions; and mindful working in times of change (Bartlett et al., 2017). In the context of higher
167

education institutions, it is recommended that MaWP classes, facilitated by trained mindfulness
practitioners, be offered to employees.
Although the EI and mindfulness training courses described above represent just two
ways in which organizations can help employees cope more effectively with incivility, their
research-proven success together with the comparatively low demands they make on
organizational resources and employee time suggest that they are suitable choices for higher
education environments.
Recommendation 5: The Organization Should Ask All Employee Workgroups to Host Regular
Discussions About Improving Civility
In reflecting upon the success of the CREW civility intervention that they deployed
across the VHA system, Osatuke et al. (2009) highlighted regular discussions about civility at the
workgroup level as being the most important catalyst for civility improvement. These
discussions were not formally defined training sessions or workshops, but informal conversations
that focused on what employees could do at the local level to increase civility within their
environments. This participatory approach allowed staff to feel like true collaborators in the
process of improving the culture of the organization. Facilitators oversaw the conversations, but
their role was merely to inspire the generation of ideas and to keep the dialogue moving and on
topic. Facilitators received brief training and were provided with an educational toolkit that
contained material such as facilitation tips, discussion prompts, suggestions for civil behavior
incentives, and vignettes of situations for group problem solving (Osatuke et al., 2009).
Given the success of the CREW civility intervention at the VHA and elsewhere (Leiter
et al., 2011, 2012; Spence Laschinger, 2012), and given that the pivotal component of this
success is regular facilitated group discussions, managers in each workgroup could be asked to
168

nominate one or more team members to receive training in the facilitation of civility discussions.
These facilitators would then be supplied with the CREW educational toolkit and asked to
oversee monthly discussions in their workgroups over a six-month period (Osatuke et al., 2009).
Recommendation 6: The Organization Should Publicize Guidance for Employees on How to
Address Incivility With the Perpetrator When They Experience It
As discussed in Chapter 4, a common refrain heard from study participants was a lack of
accountability for uncivil behavior in their institutions, especially the uncivil behavior of long
serving and senior faculty, who were typically seen as untouchable. In the context of uncivil
behavior, accountability can be viewed both interpersonally and organizationally. The current
recommendation addresses accountability at the interpersonal level while the next
recommendation addresses accountability at the organizational level.
When somebody is mistreated in the workplace, it can be very challenging for them to
speak up, confront the person responsible for the mistreatment, and hold them accountable for
their behavior in the moment (Clark, 2013). A survey study of faculty-to-faculty incivility within
the social work field by McClendon et al. (2021) adds support for this observation. The 243
faculty who were surveyed were asked to pick the reasons why they avoided dealing with
incivility from their colleagues. Fifty-three percent of the respondents chose fear of professional
retaliation, 43% chose concern about making matters worse, and 37% chose fear of personal
retaliation.
Building on her finding that nearly half of the 357 nursing faculty she surveyed
recognized the effectiveness of direct communication for addressing incivility, Clark (2013)
presents a set of practical guidelines for how people should deal with incivility when they
experience it from a colleague. First, the target of the incivility should avoid reacting on the spur
169

of the moment. Next, the target should talk to a trusted colleague and ask for their perspective on
whether the encounter was problematic. Assuming the colleague agrees that it was, the target
should arrange to meet the uncivil party at a convenient time in a quiet place without distractions
or the potential for interruptions. With mutual agreement, a third party can be invited to mediate
the discussion. Finally, the discussion itself should proceed in a way that allows both parties to
express their interests and goals (Clark, 2013).
In a similar vein to Clark’s (2013) guidelines, Overton and Lowry (2013) offer a set of
best practices for having “difficult conversations with difficult people” (p. 259), including the
specific instance of addressing physicians who behave uncivilly. The authors aggregated these
best practices from the research literature on conflict management. The best practices include the
following: having the conversation in a safe, private, and neutral environment; inviting the
uncivil party to provide a self-assessment of their behavior during the problematic interaction;
asking open-ended questions; using “I” statements to convey feelings; and focusing on shared
goals for future interactions (Overton & Lowry, 2013).
In accordance with the guidelines and best practices described above, it is recommended
that the higher education organization collate and publish a set of tips to help people address
incivility when they experience it. These tips can be socialized alongside the organizational
norms developed by adopting the first recommendation in this chapter. Depending on how these
tips are received and how effective they are deemed to be, training courses in a methodology
such as Crucial Conversations (Patterson, 2002) could be developed. As a corollary to this
recommendation, it is instructive to note that one of the participants in the current study, Bianca,
spoke about how beneficial training in Crucial Conversations (Patterson, 2002) had been for her
and her team.
170

Recommendation 7: The Organization Should Include a Civility Dimension in Employee
Performance Evaluations
The previous section described the lack of accountability for uncivil behavior from an
interpersonal perspective and suggested how the organization can help employees address the
behavior directly with the person responsible. However, accountability can also be viewed from
a broader, organizational perspective. As several participants shared during their interviews, the
organization itself does not do enough to hold its employees accountable for uncivil behavior.
This finding supports Porath and Pearson’s (2010) observation that leaders often do not take
meaningful action when uncivil behavior is brought to their attention, instead opting for an easier
fix, such as moving the perpetrator to another department.
One way of introducing accountability for incivility into an organization is by including
civility as a criterion in the performance evaluation process for employees (Porath & Pearson,
2010). Clark and Ritter (2018) suggest that civility and collegiality can either be incorporated as
a standalone evaluation dimension or existing evaluation dimensions can be expanded to include
consideration of civility and collegiality. Either way, the authors acknowledge that making
changes to performance management processes can be a sensitive issue. Indeed, one participant
in the current study, Carlton, described how civility used to be a criterion in faculty evaluations
at the nursing school where he works, but political pressure led to this criterion being dropped
from the evaluation process.
Even though updating performance management processes to incorporate assessments of
civility is a challenging undertaking, it is recommended that the organization pursue it
nonetheless (Clark et al., 2020). More specifically, the organization should review the behavioral
dimensions on which staff and faculty are currently evaluated and expand them to include
171

civility behaviors that correspond to the norms developed in the first recommendation in this
section.
Recommendation 8: The Organization Should Implement a Peer Coaching Strategy Among
Employees
Several researchers have highlighted the role that self-awareness plays in shaping a
culture of workplace civility. Based on her many years of interviewing employees about
incivility, Porath (2016) notes that “incivility usually arises not from malice, but from ignorance”
(p. 12). Similarly, in reflecting on the success of their CREW implementation within the VHA,
Osatuke et al. (2009) concluded that awareness of one’s own behavior and how it impacts others
is a crucial prerequisite for civil behavior. Khadjehturian (2012) also highlighted the importance
of self-awareness when discussing how nurses can reduce incivility in their units. These findings
lead to the conclusion that civility can be increased in an organization if people generally
become more self-aware.
One way of increasing employees’ self-awareness is to teach them how to give, receive
and use constructive feedback from each other (Clark et al., 2020). Porath and Pearson (2016)
offer a more specific framing of this suggestion. They propose that training people in how to
coach others at work offers numerous interrelated benefits. Coaches know how to monitor their
own behavior and process feedback on it, they understand how to give such feedback to others,
and they know how to listen for signs that a coworker needs help (Porath & Pearson, 2016).
Ladyshewsky (2017) describes in detail a peer coaching strategy that he has implemented
successfully in numerous workplace contexts. In this model, a peer selects an individual in their
organization with whom they wish to develop a coaching relationship. The two peers first get to
know each other and build trust, and they set ground rules for confidentiality. Once this
172

foundation is in place, each peer shares an area that is challenging for them or in which they
would like to improve. The peers then ask each other non-judgmental questions to inspire
reflection and self-awareness, and to stimulate the other into thinking about their challenges in
different ways. The key to the success of this coaching strategy is that the two parties involved
have equal status, which fosters psychological safety and a desire to improve performance
(Ladyshewsky, 2017).
With respect to increasing employees’ self-awareness as a means of improving civility in
a higher education organization, it is recommended that the organization promote a peer
coaching philosophy throughout its departments. Leaders and managers could be asked to
identify one or two key people in their workgroups who could be sent to a brief training in peer
coaching. These individuals could then coach each other, and also be tasked with teaching others
how to develop and sustain peer coaching partnerships. As more people become engaged in the
peer coaching experience, it is probable that self-awareness across the organization will increase
and, with it, civility.
A Design for a Higher Education Civility Program
The eight recommendations detailed in the previous section address specific needs that
relate to workplace civility in higher education institutions. However, these recommendations in
themselves are not sufficient to meet the field global goal and the administrative staff goal that
were defined in Chapter 1. The field global goal is that, by August 2022, higher education
institutions will design and implement a workplace civility program and include it as part of their
institutional strategic planning sessions. The administrative staff goal is that the mean level of
workplace incivility experienced by administrative staff, as measured using the WIS (Cortina et
al., 2001), will be significantly lower after the implementation of a civility program than before.
173

In order to meet these two goals, the eight recommendations need to be integrated into a design
for a program that higher education institutions can adopt to increase the civility experienced by
administrative staff. This program would target not just the stakeholder of focus—administrative
staff—but also organization leaders and faculty, since all employees contribute to the civility of
an organization.
As Clark and Estes (2008) note, a fully integrated program for improving performance in
an organization is more effective, more efficient, and easier to evaluate than a set of
disconnected, disparate recommendations. Accordingly, the next three sections of this chapter
will be devoted to describing the details, the implementation, and the evaluation of a program
called the Program for Optimizing Civility in University Settings (POCUS).
Description of POCUS
POCUS integrates the eight recommendations made earlier in this chapter into a sequence
of five phases that involve the leadership, faculty, and staff of a higher education institution. The
first phase is called the Norming Phase and lays the foundation for POCUS. In this phase, the
organization leadership forms a civility working group (CWG) that includes leadership, faculty,
and staff. The CWG then oversees the process of defining a set of organizational norms for
civility (Recommendation 1). More specifically, the CWG surveys all employees for input about
their desired norms. It distills a set of norms based on this input, and it then communicates them
to the organization.
The second phase of POCUS is called the Leading Phase and focuses on leadership
behaviors that set the desired tone based on the norms defined in the Norming Phase. Numerous
leadership and organizational change authors have emphasized the need for an organization’s
leaders to support change efforts if those change efforts are to succeed (Burke, 2018; Clark &
174

Estes, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2017; Singh, 2013). In the case of civility in particular, it is
incumbent on leaders to be at the vanguard of change. Accordingly, in this phase, organizational
leaders begin intentionally modeling civility (Recommendation 2) and engaging in behaviors that
promote trust and psychological safety (Recommendation 3).
The third phase is called the Learning Phase and is concerned with giving employees the
skills they need to cope with incivility and to contribute effectively to the creation of a civil
workplace. In this phase, the CWG manages the process of scheduling training for employees in
the areas of mindfulness and emotional intelligence (Recommendation 4). At the same time, the
CWG prepares a set of tips and guidelines to help employees cope with incivility and publicizes
them to the institution (Recommendation 6).
The fourth phase of POCUS is called the Communing Phase and relates to bringing
employees together around the topic of civility. In this phase, the CWG works with department
managers to initiate monthly civility discussions in each department (Recommendation 5). In
parallel with this, the CWG announces the launch of peer coaching at the institution
(Recommendation 8) and arranges training in peer coaching for an initial cohort of employees.
The CWG then lays out the process for those employees to train others and for all employees to
find peer coaches in the organization to partner with.
The final phase of POCUS is called the Recognizing Phase and relates to the introduction
of formal accountability for uncivil behavior once all other measures for improving civility are in
place. In this phase, the CWG partners with the institution’s human resources team to update
performance evaluation criteria to include a civility dimension (Recommendation 7).
175

Implementation Plan for POCUS
Effecting organizational change in higher education institutions is often challenging
because they have a unique culture, shared governance, complex functions, ambiguous goal
structures, and numerous sources of power and influence (Kezar, 2001; Williams et al., 2005). In
order to maximize the chance of a successful POCUS implementation, it is desirable to begin
with a pilot study. A pilot study yields valuable information on what is working and what is not,
and its results can be used to modify the program before it is expanded (Balogun et al., 2016;
Kempster et al., 2014). For a given higher education institution, POCUS would be tested out on
one of its constituent departments before being implemented more widely. The pilot department
(PD) would ideally be representative of the institution and include leaders, faculty and
administrative staff.
Accordingly, the implementation plan for POCUS begins with a pilot study. Once the
pilot study is complete, the design of POCUS is updated based on the results of the study and the
program is implemented across the whole organization. The entire implementation, including the
pilot study, is estimated to take a year. The timeline of the implementation is shown in Table 11.

176

Table 11
POCUS Implementation Timeline
Action Due date
Present POCUS design to organization leadership and receive approval
for implementation.
August 2021
Identify PD for pilot implementation. August 2021
Measure pre-implementation incivility of PD using WIS. September 2021
PD engages in Norming Phase. September 2021
PD engages in Leading Phase. October 2021
PD engages in Learning Phase. October 2021
PD engages in Communing Phase. December 2021
PD engages in Recognizing Phase. January 2022
Measure post-implementation incivility of PD using WIS. February 2022
Run evaluative focus groups with PD constituents. February 2022
Modify POCUS based on focus group feedback. March 2022
Measure pre-implementation incivility of organization using WIS. March 2022
Roll out revised POCUS to organization. March 2022
Measure post-implementation incivility of organization using WIS. August 2022

Evaluation of POCUS
As Clark and Estes (2008) note, evaluation is a critical component of any performance
improvement effort within an organization. Without evaluation, there is no basis for assessing
the effectiveness of such an effort. To that end, both the pilot implementation and the full
implementation of POCUS within an organization will be evaluated qualitatively and
quantitatively. In the case of the pilot implementation, this evaluation can be considered
formative, since it will inform changes to the program before it is implemented across the whole
organization; by contrast, evaluation of the full implementation can be thought of as summative,
177

since it will yield a formal reckoning of how successful the program has been overall (Dixson &
Worrell, 2016).
In the case of the pilot study, the WIS (Cortina et al., 2001) will be used at various stages
to measure quantitatively how much incivility employees have experienced in the preceding 3-
month period. The WIS will be administered to the department involved in the pilot study before
POCUS is implemented and then again after the implementation is complete. The WIS is a 7-
item scale that can yield a mean score between one and seven. Based on the number of people in
the department, a statistical analysis will be performed to compare the mean WIS score measured
before the pilot implementation and the mean score measured afterwards in order to determine
whether incivility has decreased and, if so, whether this decrease is statistically significant.
Details of the WIS can be found in Appendix E.
Alongside the quantitative evaluation just described, each phase of the pilot
implementation will be qualitatively assessed using three focus groups, one containing
administrative staff, one containing faculty, and one containing leaders. The three groups will be
interviewed about their experiences of the activities at each stage. Focus group questions will be
based on the recommendations that constitute each stage and on the organizational needs from
which the recommendations arose. Example focus group questions are shown in Table 12.

178

Table 12
POCUS Evaluation Focus Group Questions
POCUS phase Need Recommendation Question
Norming
phase
Higher education
institutions need to foster
a civil working
environment.
1: The organization
should develop and
socialize a set of norms
for civil behavior.
How do you feel about
the norms that you
worked to develop?
Leading phase Higher education
institutions need to foster
a civil working
environment.
2: Organization leaders
should model civil
behavior.
For staff and faculty:
What changes have
you noticed in the
behavior of leaders
and how have these
changes affected your
behavior? For
leaders: What
changes have you
noticed in the
behavior of people
around you since you
started intentionally
demonstrating civil
behaviors?
Higher education
institutions need to foster
a culture of
psychological safety and
trust in order to lay the
groundwork for a civil
working environment.
3: Organization leaders
should engage in
leadership behaviors
that encourage trust and
psychological safety.
For staff and faculty:
How would you
assess psychological
safety and trust in
your
organization/team
now that leaders have
begun consciously
fostering them? For
leaders: How would
you assess
psychological safety
and trust in your
organization/team
now that you have
begun consciously
fostering them?
179

POCUS phase Need Recommendation Question
Learning
phase
Higher education
institutions need to
provide resources,
support, and training for
administrative staff to
manage and cope with
the impacts of an uncivil
work environment.
4: The organization
should offer workshops
in emotional
intelligence, empathy,
and mindfulness to help
employees cope better
in response to
experiencing incivility.
What does your daily
mindfulness practice
look like now that
you have received
mindfulness training?
How do you think
your emotional
intelligence changed
as a result of the
emotional intelligence
training?
Higher education
institutions need to hold
all employees
accountable for uncivil
behavior.
6: The organization
should publicize
guidance for employees
on how to address
incivility with the
perpetrator when they
experience it.
What strategies for
addressing incivility
resonate with you
personally? What
strategies have you
used and how
effective were they?
Communing
phase

Higher education
institutions need to offer
administrative staff
regular opportunities to
discuss civility in their
workgroups.
5: The organization
should ask all
employee workgroups
to host regular
discussions about
improving civility.
How do you feel the
civility conversations
with your workgroup
are going?
Higher education
institutions need to train
employees to become
more self-aware.
8: The organization
should implement a
peer coaching strategy
among employees.
What impact do you
feel the peer coaching
process has had on
you?
Recognizing
phase
Higher education
institutions need to hold
all employees
accountable for uncivil
behavior.
7: The organization
should include a
civility dimension in
employee performance
evaluations.
How do you think
people’s behavior has
changed since the
addition of civility as
a performance
evaluation
dimension?

In addition to the questions shown in Table 12 that address the organizational needs and
recommendations identified in this study, the focus groups should also be prompted to discuss
180

how they feel overall about POCUS and how committed they are to their involvement in it.
Although these areas of discussion relate to motivation and although none of the assumed
motivation influences in this study were validated by the administrative staff who participated,
Clark and Estes (2008) note that eliciting this kind of reaction or motivation input is foundational
to any evaluation effort. A program like POCUS cannot be effective if people do not see its value
and are not willing to engage in it.
The WIS assessment and the focus group input described above will be used in tandem to
determine how effective POCUS is at increasing civility among all employees at the institution
and to determine what elements of the program might need to be adjusted before it is fully
implemented. In addition to this formative assessment process, the same combination of WIS
and focus groups will be used to evaluate the full POCUS implementation summatively. The
mean pre-implementation WIS score for the organization will be compared with the post-
implementation score. In particular, the difference in pre-implementation and post-
implementation scores for administrative staff will be consulted to assess whether POCUS has
achieved the administrative staff goal of reducing the WIS score by a statistically significant
amount. In addition, focus groups will be conducted with leaders, faculty and staff in the
institution to solicit feedback about their experiences of individual POCUS activities. Similar to
the focus groups used in the formative assessment process, these focus groups will address the
questions shown in Table 13 and participants will also discuss how they feel about POCUS and
how committed they are to the program.
Limitations and Delimitations
According to Cresswell and Cresswell (2018), limitations are the deficiencies of a study
that lie outside the control of the researcher. There are three notable limitations of this study.
181

First, using LinkedIn to sample participants artificially reduced the pool of potential candidates
from which participants could be selected. This pool contained only those people who use
LinkedIn and to whom the researcher already had some kind of connection. Both of these criteria
were side-effects of convenience and were not explicitly part of the purposive sampling strategy.
The second limitation relates to triangulation, a technique that is often used to maximize the
credibility of qualitative research findings by cross-checking the underlying data against data
from other sources (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because of the time and resource constraints to
which this study was subject, it was not practical to triangulate the interview data with data from
other sources, such as surveys or documents. The third limitation is one that can potentially
apply to any study that uses qualitative interviews to gather data. The presence of the interviewer
can affect how a participant responds (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). Given that the subject of
workplace incivility is a sensitive one, participants may have felt reluctant to be completely open
and forthcoming. Although the researcher emphasized the importance of confidentiality and
worked hard to build rapport during the interviews, it is still possible that some participants
refrained from sharing certain experiences, thoughts and feelings that may have been pertinent to
the study.
By contrast with limitations, delimitations are parameters of a study that are defined by
the researcher and that clarify the study’s scope (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). This study was
focused on workplace incivility within higher education rather than within organizations
generally. The reason for this focus is that the researcher works in higher education and
identified a need to understand how incivility manifests itself and how civility can be improved
in this field specifically. In addition, staff were the only stakeholders who were interviewed in
this study, even though leadership, faculty, students, and others are impacted by incivility. The
182

researcher’s own experiences as a staff member drove his desire to focus on this population.
Finally, this study did not focus directly on the incidence or negative consequences of incivility.
There is a wealth of research covering these dimensions of the problem. On the contrary, this
study was positively oriented towards how civility can be improved in higher education.
Recommendations for Future Research
While carrying out this study, the researcher identified a number of areas that would
benefit from additional exploration. The first of these areas relates to POCUS, the civility
program described in this chapter. POCUS integrates the eight recommendations that emerged
from the data analysis. However, while the evaluation plan for POCUS assesses the program’s
overall effectiveness in increasing civility, the plan does not allow for a more detailed
investigation of the individual effectiveness of each component. Accordingly, it would be
instructive to isolate each component for individual study. A given recommendation, such as the
development of civility norms, could be implemented in a higher education institution in order to
determine what impact it has on civility. By investigating the POCUS components individually
in this way, it would be possible to streamline the program and eliminate or modify any
components that are not, in themselves, effective.
Another area that warrants further exploration relates to the emergent finding in this
study that several administrative staff viewed faculty in particular as a primary source of
incivility. A follow-up study could include a quantitative component to determine whether this
phenomenon occurs within a broader population of higher education administrative staff. In
addition, it would be instructive to interview and survey faculty to shed light on their
relationships with administrative staff and to understand how they view civility and incivility. A
similar study could be performed with organization leaders to learn their perspective on
183

interactions between faculty and administrative staff. All of these findings could then be
synthesized to provide a detailed and nuanced picture of civility and incivility within higher
education as it relates to the faculty-staff dynamic. This synthesized picture could inform the
development of more targeted civility interventions.
A third area that would be interesting to study relates to the role of identity in uncivil
interactions. This study did not explore how gender, race, or age play into people’s experiences
of incivility in higher education workplaces. Accordingly, it would be instructive to explore
questions such as the following: Do women employees in higher education environments
experience more incivility than men? Do people of color experience more incivility than white
people? Is there a correlation between an employee’s age and the amount of uncivil behavior
they report? Which identities are associated with incivility perpetration? These questions could
be explored using mixed methods studies, in which surveys would capture quantitative data to
demonstrate what correlations exist between incivility and the different dimensions of identity,
and in which interviews and focus groups would drill down into the lived experiences of higher
education employees who identify in these different ways. Again, the data from these studies
could be used to drive measures to address incivility that are more targeted and refined for
different sub-populations.
The fourth area that warrants investigation in the context of higher education is the
number of people who are responsible for uncivil behavior in institutions. While there are many
studies showing that a high proportion of employees in organizations report having experienced
incivility (e.g., Cortina et al., 2013; Heischman et al., 2019; Porath & Pearson, 2013; Sakurai &
Jex, 2012), there is very little research into what proportion of employees can be considered
perpetrators. In their study of incivility across various industries, Taylor et al. (2021) found this
184

proportion to be relatively low. They suggested, as a result, that it may be more cost-effective for
organizations to target incivility interventions at the small number of people whose behavior is
known to cause problems. In line with Taylor et al.’s (2021) work, it would be instructive to
explore whether this pattern of incivility perpetration applies to higher education institutions and
whether civility interventions can be scaled down accordingly.
The final area worthy of exploration concerns different types of higher education
institutions. In this study, the majority of administrative staff who were interviewed happened to
work at private universities. It would be interesting to investigate how incivility manifests itself
at public universities and whether the civility intervention described earlier in this chapter would
be applicable to such institutions as-is or would need to be modified to cater for a different
civility landscape.
Conclusion
The purpose of this qualitative field study was to explore the problem of workplace
incivility as experienced by administrative staff within higher education institutions. While some
research has been conducted into higher education workplace incivility, very little of it has been
qualitative in nature and none of it has focused on administrative staff exclusively. Based on
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, the study investigated the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors that might contribute to incivility and that might inform
strategies for its reduction. Twelve administrative staff from American universities were
interviewed and an analysis of the data confirmed that incivility is a problem in higher education.
The analysis also suggested that factors related to organizational culture are responsible for the
perpetuation of incivility. Using these factors as a guide, the study provided eight
185

recommendations for increasing workplace civility and integrated them into a civility program
called the Program for Optimizing Civility in University Settings (POCUS).
A wealth of research has shown how widespread a problem workplace incivility is and
how it can negatively impact employees and organizations in many ways. By adopting this
program, it is hoped that higher education institutions can turn the incivility tide. If universities
take this holistic, systematic approach towards improving organizational culture, they can
increase the productivity, happiness, and wellbeing of their employees. Not only will universities
become more pleasant places to work, but they will have employees who are inspired to do
everything they can to ensure the organization meets and exceeds its goals.

186

References
Alidina, S., & Adams, J. (2014). Mindfulness at work for dummies. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
American Council on Education. (2019). U.S. higher education: A brief guide.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/brief-guide-to-US-higher-ed.pdf
Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.004
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
Balogun, J., Hope Hailey, V., & Gustafsson, S. (2016). Exploring strategic change (Fourth
edition). Pearson Education.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289628801300210
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In
A. Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & M. Sabido (Eds.), Entertainment-education and
social change: History, research, and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In Great Minds in Management
(pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, L., Lovell, P., Otahal, P., & Sanderson, K. (2017). Acceptability, feasibility, and
efficacy of a workplace mindfulness program for public sector employees: A pilot
randomized controlled trial with informant reports. Mindfulness, 8(3), 639–654.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0643-4
187

Bartlett, L., Martin, A., Neil, A. L., Memish, K., Otahal, P., Kilpatrick, M., & Sanderson, K.
(2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace mindfulness training
randomized controlled trials. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 108–
126. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000146
Birkeland, I. K., & Nerstad, C. (2016). Incivility is (not) the very essence of love: Passion for
work and incivility instigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 77–
90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039389
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding
experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1),
87–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030987
Burke, L. A., Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Evans, W. R. (2014). Student incivility: A domain
review. Journal of Management Education, 38(2), 160–191.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913488112
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (Fifth edition). SAGE.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating
effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
188

Çetin, F., & Aşkun, D. (2018). The effect of occupational self-efficacy on work performance
through intrinsic work motivation. Management Research Review, 41(2), 186–201.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2017-0062
Chen, H.-T., & Wang, C.-H. (2019). Incivility, satisfaction and turnover intention of tourist hotel
chefs: Moderating effects of emotional intelligence. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(5), 2034–2053.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2018-0164
Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y. (2013). Self-love’s lost
labor: A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management
Journal, 56(4), 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0906
Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., Han, S. J., & Lee, K. H. (2016). Workplace incivility and its effect upon
restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2888–2912.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0205
Clark, C. M. (2013). National study on faculty-to-faculty incivility: Strategies to foster
collegiality and civility. Nurse Educator, 38(3), 98–102.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e31828dc1b2
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, C. M., Landis, T. T., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2020). National study on faculty and
administrators’ perceptions of civility and incivility in nursing education. Nurse
Educator, Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000948
189

Clark, C. M., & Ritter, K. (2018). Policy to foster civility and support a healthy academic work
environment. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(6), 325–331.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180522-02
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27745097
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective
incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of
Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The
past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 22(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089
Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M.,
& Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal
courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27(2), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-
4469.2002.tb00804.x
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–
80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (Fifth edition). SAGE Publications.
Dean, H. D., Myles, R. L., Porch, T., Parris, S., & Spears-Jones, C. (2021). Changing leadership
behaviors in a public health agency through coaching and multirater feedback. Journal of
190

Public Health Management and Practice, 27(1), 46–54.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001044
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.611
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and Summative Assessment in the Classroom.
Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future
of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
031413-091305
Estes, B., & Jia Wang. (2008). Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational
performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308315565
Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker
incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 571–588.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.774
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. J. Wiley.
Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2016). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The
contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
101(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000037
Gabriel, A. S., Butts, M. M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R. L., & Sliter, M. T. (2018). Further
understanding incivility in the workplace: The effects of gender, agency, and
191

communion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 362–382.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000289
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Magley, V. J. (2014). An eye
for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and
perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 143–154.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035931
Gase, L. N., Gomez, L. M., Kuo, T., Glenn, B. A., Inkelas, M., & Ponce, N. A. (2017).
Relationships among student, staff, and administrative measures of school climate and
student health and academic outcomes. Journal of School Health, 87(5), 319–328.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12501
Gedro, J., & Wang, J. (2013). Creating civil and respectful organizations through the scholar-
practitioner bridge. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(3), 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422313488062
Geldart, S., Langlois, L., Shannon, H. S., Cortina, L. M., Griffith, L., & Haines, T. (2018).
Workplace incivility, psychological distress, and the protective effect of co-worker
support. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(2), 96–110.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2017-0051
Gibbs, G., & Flick, U. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd edition). SAGE.
Gibbs, T., & Kharouf, H. (2020). The value of co-operation: An examination of the work
relationships of university professional services staff and consequences for service
192

quality. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1725878
Gilin Oore, D., Leblanc, D., Day, A., Leiter, M. P., Spence Laschinger, H. K., Price, S. L., &
Latimer, M. (2010). When respect deteriorates: Incivility as a moderator of the stressor-
strain relationship among hospital workers. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 878–
888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01139.x
Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R., & Kowalski, R. M.
(2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support
on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032851
Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M. (2012).
Cyber Incivility @ Work: The New Age of Interpersonal Deviance. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 148–154.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0336
Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship between customer incivility,
restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 97–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.002
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing
achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745–765.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000075
193

Harold, C. M., & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1926
Heischman, R. M., Nagy, M. S., & Settler, K. J. (2019). Before you send that: Comparing the
outcomes of face-to-face and cyber incivility. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 22(1),
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000081
Hodgins, M., & Mannix McNamara, P. (2017). Bullying and incivility in higher education
workplaces: Micropolitics and the abuse of power. Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 190–206.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-03-2017-1508
Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., & Zenasni, F. (2018). How efficient are
emotional intelligence trainings: A meta-analysis. Emotion Review, 10(2), 138–148.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917708613
Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Bäckström, M. (2019). Exploring links between witnessed and
instigated workplace incivility. International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
12(3), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-04-2018-0044
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T. W., & Han, S.-J. (2015). The effect of customer incivility on service
employees’ customer orientation through double-mediation of surface acting and
emotional exhaustion. Journal of Service Theory and Practice; Bingley, 25(4), 394–413.
Hurley, J., Hutchinson, M., Kozlowski, D., Gadd, M., & Vorst, S. (2020). Emotional intelligence
as a mechanism to build resilience and non‐technical skills in undergraduate nurses
undertaking clinical placement. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 29(1),
47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12607
194

Ingraham, K. C., Davidson, S. J., & Yonge, O. (2018). Student-faculty relationships and its
impact on academic outcomes. Nurse Education Today, 71, 17–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.021
Jensen, J. M., Cole, M. S., & Rubin, R. S. (2019). Predicting retail shrink from performance
pressure, ethical leader behavior, and store‐level incivility. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 40(6), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2366
Jiang, W., Chai, H., Li, Y., & Feng, T. (2019). How workplace incivility influences job
performance: The role of image outcome expectations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 57(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12197
Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A
meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of
Management, 42(6), 1588–1613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313506466
Jung, J., & Shin, J. C. (2015). Administrative staff members’ job competency and their job
satisfaction in a Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 881–
901. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.865161
Kabat-Zinn, J., Lipworth, L., & Burney, R. (1985). The clinical use of mindfulness meditation
for the self-regulation of chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8(2), 163–190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00845519
Karim, J., Bibi, Z., & Rehman, S. U. (2015). Emotional intelligence and perceived work-related
outcomes: mediating role of workplace incivility victimization. Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, 30(1), 21–37.
195

Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and
employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership.
Work & Stress, 26(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.660774
Kempster, S., Higgs, M., & Wuerz, T. (2014). Pilots for change: Exploring organisational change
through distributed leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(2),
152–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0055
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. Jossey-Bass.
Khadjehturian, R. E. (2012). Stopping the culture of workplace incivility in nursing. Clinical
Journal of Oncology Nursing, 16(6), 638–639. https://doi.org/10.1188/12.CJON.638-639
Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2019). The effects of experienced customer incivility on employees’
behavior toward customers and coworkers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
43(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018764583
Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2011). The effect of an expressive-writing
intervention for employees on emotional self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, affect, and
workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 179–195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00708.x
Kirk, B., Schutte, N., & Hine, D. (2009). Chapter 9 The role of emotional self-efficacy,
emotional intelligence, and affect in workplace incivility and workplace satisfaction. In
C. E. J. Härtel, N. M. Ashkanasy, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on Emotion in
Organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 211–225). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-9791(2009)0000005011
196

Koon, V.-Y., & Pun, P.-Y. (2018). The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and job
satisfaction on the relationship between job demands and instigated workplace incivility.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(2), 187–207.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317749163
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary
things happen in organizations (Sixth edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kozlowski, D., Hutchinson, M., Hurley, J., & Browne, G. (2018). Increasing nurses’ emotional
intelligence with a brief intervention. Applied Nursing Research, 41, 59–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2018.04.001
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2017). Peer coaching as a strategy to increase learning and development in
organisational life—A perspective. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
and Mentoring, 15(1), 4–10.
Lanzo, L., Aziz, S., & Wuensch, K. (2016). Workaholism and incivility: Stress and
psychological capital’s role. International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
9(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-08-2015-0051
Lasater, K., Mood, L., Buchwach, D., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2015). Reducing incivility in the
workplace: Results of a three-part educational intervention. The Journal of Continuing
Education in Nursing, 46(1), 15–24.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3928/00220124-20141224-01
Lasiter, S., Marchiondo, L., & Marchiondo, K. (2012). Student narratives of faculty incivility.
Nursing Outlook, 60(3), 121-126.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2011.06.001
197

Lee, J., & Jensen, J. M. (2014). The effects of active constructive and passive corrective
leadership on workplace incivility and the mediating role of fairness perceptions. Group
& Organization Management, 39(4), 416–443.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114543182
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Oore, D. G., & Spence Laschinger, H. K. (2012). Getting better and
staying better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a
civility intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029540
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility
interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(6), 1258–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024442
Leiter, M. P., Price, S. L., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Generational differences in distress,
attitudes and incivility among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 970–980.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01168.x
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1),
71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Lim, S., Ilies, R., Koopman, J., Christoforou, P., & Arvey, R. D. (2018). Emotional mechanisms
linking incivility at work to aggression and withdrawal at home: An experience-sampling
study. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2888–2908.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654544
198

Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family
support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0021726
Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (2009). Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on
employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006
Liu, P., Xiao, C., He, J., Wang, X., & Li, A. (2020). Experienced workplace incivility, anger,
guilt, and family satisfaction: The double-edged effect of narcissism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 154, 109642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109642
Loh, J. M. I., & Loi, N. (2018). Tit for tat: Burnout as a mediator between workplace incivility
and instigated workplace incivility. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,
10(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-11-2017-0132
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation
and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly,
16(4), 471–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318903251627
Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., & Carson, J. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of
interpersonal and organizational workplace deviance research. Journal of Management,
014920631986261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319862612
Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the Uncivil Workplace
Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 477–490.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.477
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third edition).
SAGE Publications.
199

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
McCarthy, K. A. (2016). Is rudeness really that common? An exploratory study of incivility at
work. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(4), 364–374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2016.1228362
McClendon, J., Lane, S. R., & Flowers, T. D. (2021). Faculty-to-faculty incivility in social work
education. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(1), 100–112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1671271
McCord, M. A., Joseph, D. L., Dhanani, L. Y., & Beus, J. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of sex and
race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
103(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000250
McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x
Meier, L. L., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Lack of reciprocity, narcissism, anger, and instigated
workplace incivility: A moderated mediation model. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 461–475.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.654605
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (Fourth edition). Jossey-Bass.
200

Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences
among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
14(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012683
Miner, K. N., & Eischeid, A. (2012). Observing incivility toward coworkers and negative
emotions: Do gender of the target and observer matter? Sex Roles, 66(7–8), 492–505.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0108-0
Miner, K. N., Settles, I. H., Pratt‐Hyatt, J. S., & Brady, C. C. (2012). Experiencing incivility in
organizations: the buffering effects of emotional and organizational support. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 340–372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x
National Center for Education Statistics. 2020. IPEDS Data Collection System 2020-21 Survey
Materials: Glossary. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/public/glossary
Naimon, E. C., Mullins, M. E., & Osatuke, K. (2013). The effects of personality and spirituality
on workplace incivility perceptions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion,
10(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2012.758049
Nicholson, T., & Griffin, B. (2015). Here today but not gone tomorrow: Incivility affects after-
work and next-day recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 218–
225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038376
Ogungbamila, B. (2013). Perception of organizational politics and job-related negative emotions
as predictors of workplace incivility among employees of distressed banks. European
Scientific Journal, 9(5), 125–138.
201

Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., & Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect,
engagement in the workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization development
intervention at Veterans Health Administration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 45(3), 384–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309335067
Overton, A., & Lowry, A. (2013). Conflict management: Difficult conversations with difficult
people. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 26(04), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-
0033-1356728
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of
humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(4), 787–818. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0441
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations:
Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517–
1538. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795
Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., & Gignac, G. (2009). The Genos Emotional Intelligence
Inventory: A measure designed specifically for workplace applications. In J. Parker, D.
Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), Assessing Emotional Intelligence. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_6
Papadimitriou, A. (2020). Beyond rhetoric: Reinventing the public mission of higher education.
Tertiary Education and Management, 26(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-
09046-9
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2018). Daily cyber incivility and distress: the moderating roles
of resources at work and home. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2535–2557.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315576796
202

Park, Y., & Haun, V. C. (2018). The long arm of email incivility: Transmitted stress to the
partner and partner work withdrawal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1268–
1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2289
Pattani, R., Ginsburg, S., Mascarenhas Johnson, A., Moore, J. E., Jassemi, S., & Straus, S. E.
(2018). Organizational factors contributing to incivility at an academic medical center
and systems-based solutions: a qualitative study. Academic Medicine, 93(10), 1569–
1575. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002310
Patterson, K. (Ed.). (2002). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high.
McGraw-Hill.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third edition). SAGE
Publications.
Paulin, D., & Griffin, B. (2016). The relationships between incivility, team climate for incivility
and job-related employee well-being: A multilevel analysis. Work & Stress, 30(2), 132–
151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1173124
Pekrun, R. (2018). Achievement emotions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Press.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(7), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
203

Porath, C. L. (2016). Mastering civility: A manifesto for the workplace (First edition). Grand
Central Publishing.
Porath, C. (2018). Make civility the norm on your team. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2018/01/make-civility-the-norm-on-your-team
Porath, C. L., Foulk, T., & Erez, A. (2015). How incivility hijacks performance: It robs cognitive
resources, increases dysfunctional behavior, and infects team dynamics and functioning.
Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.002
Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527–1541.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000016
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics,
39(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.006
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(S1), E326–E357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review,
91(1/2), 114–121.
Rahim, A., & Cosby, D. M. (2016). A model of workplace incivility, job burnout, turnover
intentions, and job performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1255–
1265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0138
Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036464
204

Reio, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility:
Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20020
Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and
counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 150–161.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027350
Savage, J. (2017). Determining faculty climate and relationship between faculty and
administration. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 29, 56–67.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Third edition). Jossey-Bass.
Schilpzand, P., Pater, I. E. D., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature
and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S57–S88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
Schmidt, L., Palminteri, S., Lafargue, G., & Pessiglione, M. (2010). Splitting motivation:
Unilateral effects of subliminal incentives. Psychological Science, 21(7), 977–983.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610372636
Sears, K., & Humiston, G. S. (2015). The role of emotion in workplace incivility. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0373
Sguera, F., Bagozzi, R. P., Huy, Q. N., Boss, R. W., & Boss, D. S. (2016). Curtailing the harmful
effects of workplace incivility: The role of structural demands and organization-provided
resources. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95 –96, 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.08.004
205

Sharma, N., & Singh, V. K. (2016). Effect of workplace incivility on job satisfaction and
turnover intentions in India. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 5(2),
234–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-02-2015-0020
Singh, A. (2013). A study of role of McKinsey’s 7S framework in achieving organizational
excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39–50.
Sliter, M., & Jones, M. (2016). A qualitative and quantitative examination of the antecedents of
customer incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2), 208–219.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039897
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple
sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767
Spence Laschinger, H. K., Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Gilin-Oore, D., & Mackinnon, S. P. (2012).
Building empowering work environments that foster civility and organizational trust:
Testing an intervention. Nursing Research, 61(5), 316–325.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e318265a58d
Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Read, E. A. (2016). The effect of authentic leadership, person-job
fit, and civility norms on new graduate nurses’ experiences of coworker incivility and
burnout. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 46(11), 574–580.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000407
Tarraf, R. C., McLarnon, M. J. W., & Finegan, J. E. (2019). Dispositional mindfulness buffers
against incivility outcomes: A moderated mediation model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 138, 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.035
206

Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to
workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028211
Taylor, S. G., Locklear, L. R., Kluemper, D. H., & Lu, X. (2021). Beyond targets and instigators:
Examining workplace incivility in dyads and the moderating role of perceived incivility
norms. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000910
Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility?
The moderating role of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 595–616.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201492618
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 & Stress, 30(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524
Totterdell, P., Hershcovis, M. S., Niven, K., Reich, T. C., & Stride, C. (2012). Can employees be
emotionally drained by witnessing unpleasant interactions between coworkers? A diary
study of induced emotion regulation. Work & Stress, 26(2), 112–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.681153
Trudel, J., & Reio, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict
management styles—antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly,
22(4), 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20081
van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and
emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility.
Journal of Management, 36(6), 1486–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310368998
207

Viotti, S., Essenmacher, L., Hamblin, L. E., & Arnetz, J. E. (2018). Testing the reciprocal
associations among co-worker incivility, organisational inefficiency, and work-related
exhaustion: A one-year, cross-lagged study. Work & Stress, 32(4), 334–356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1436615
Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Exploring the effects of
individual customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: The moderating roles of
entity (in)civility and negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 151–
161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034350
Walrath, J., Dang, D., & Nyberg, D. (2010). Hospital RNS’ experiences with disruptive
behavior. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 25(2), 105–116.
Walsh, B. M., Lee, J., Jensen, J. M., McGonagle, A. K., & Samnani, A.-K. (2018). Positive
leader behaviors and workplace incivility: The mediating role of perceived norms for
respect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 495–508.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9505-x
Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Reeves, D. W., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmet, M. D., & Gallus, J.
A. (2012). Assessing workgroup norms for civility: the development of the civility norms
questionnaire-brief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 407–420.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9251-4
Walters, K. N., & Diab, D. L. (2016). Humble leadership: Implications for psychological safety
and follower engagement. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(2), 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21434
208

Wang, C.-H., & Chen, H.-T. (2020). Relationships among workplace incivility, work
engagement and job performance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 3(4),
415–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-09-2019-0105
Wang, Y., Liu, J., & Zhu, Y. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge
sharing, and follower creativity: A cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
1727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727
Welbourne, J. L., Gangadharan, A., & Sariol, A. M. (2015). Ethnicity and cultural values as
predictors of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038277
Welbourne, J. L., & Sariol, A. M. (2017). When does incivility lead to counterproductive work
behavior? Roles of job involvement, task interdependence, and gender. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000029
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the Incivility from
Customers Scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 310–326.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/a0032753
209

Wu, L.-Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R. K., Kwan, H. K., & He, X. (2014). Hostile attribution bias and
negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance.
Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1658-6
Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 84–90.
Zhang, S., Ma, C., Meng, D., Shi, Y., Xie, F., Wang, J., Dong, X., Liu, J., Cang, S., & Sun, T.
(2018). Impact of workplace incivility in hospitals on the work ability, career
expectations and job performance of Chinese nurses: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ
Open, 8(12), e021874. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021874
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2018). The role of self-efficacy and
related beliefs in self-regulation of learning and performance. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Press.

210

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction (3 minutes)

● Greet the participant and introduce myself
● Express gratitude for their participation
● Confirm they understand the Informed Consent and ask if they have any questions
● Present an outline of the next 57 minutes:
○ confidentiality discussion
○ overview of the interview process
○ asking of questions
○ closing (with opportunity for participant to ask questions)

Confidentiality (2 minutes)

● Emphasize the importance of privacy and confidentiality
● Confirm with the participant that it is OK to record the interview
○ Assert that the only people who will see the recording are the researcher and the
transcription service
○ State that the recording will be deleted after it has been transcribed
○ Assert that no identifying information about the participant or their institution will
appear in the dissertation

Overview (2 minutes)

● State that I will be asking a number of questions over a period of 50 minutes
● Warn that some of the questions may ask about unpleasant experiences and that they are
free to share as much or as little about those experiences as they feel comfortable with
● State that questions will be open-ended
● Explain that I may interrupt the participant to clarify the question or to ask for more detail
● Explain that recording will begin now and press the record button in Zoom

Questions (50 minutes)

1. (Ice-breaker) Can you talk a little about your current role in your organization?
2. Have you heard the phrase “workplace incivility? If so, what does it mean to you? What
does being treated badly by a supervisor or coworker look like to you? [K-C-1]
3. What does being treated well look like? [K-C-1]
4. Thinking of times when you’ve been treated badly at work, what effect did this treatment
have on you? [K-C-2]
5. When someone is treated badly, what effect does it have on the team, on the department,
and on the organization? [K-C-2]
6. How does your behavior affect the people around you at work? [K-M-1]
7. What conditions make it easy for you to be civil to your work colleagues? What
conditions make it hard? [M-1]
211

8. Are there any people in your organization who model civil behavior? Without naming
names, just positions, who are they and in what capacities do they work? What do they do
that models civil behavior? [M-2]
9. How important is it for you to behave civilly towards your colleagues? If you treat
someone badly, what impact does it have on how successful you are at your job? [M-3]
10. What helps you experience more positive emotions at work? What factors contribute to
those conditions? [M-4]
11. What recommendations do you have for things your organization could do to foster a
more respectful or civil working environment? [O-1]
12. On a scale of 1-10, how much do you trust the people you work with on a day-to-day
basis? What factors contribute to your score? What conditions would make your score
even higher? With respect to psychological safety, how could you feel even more safe in
your current work environment? [O-2]
13. Does your organization provide staff resources to help staff deal with being treated rudely
or disrespectfully by coworkers and supervisors? What are these resources? What
recommendations do you have for resources your organization could provide staff? [O-3]
14. Do you currently have conversations with your colleagues about your work environment?
Do you discuss civility or the types of behavior exhibited by colleagues? Does your
organization provide you with opportunities to discuss civility in your workgroups?
Would it be helpful to you if they did? What would you recommend with respect to these
kinds of conversations? [O-4]

Closing (3 minutes)

● Stop the recording and announce that it has been stopped
● Thank the participant for their openness
● Reiterate my commitment to confidentiality and privacy
● Ask if I can follow-up with the participant to review my initial findings
● Ask the participant if they have any questions
● Thank the participant again, wish them the best, and end the Zoom meeting

Attachment 1: Probes

● Can you offer some examples?
● That’s a very interesting example. Can you tell me more?
● What about your colleagues?
● What do you think lies behind that?
● In an ideal world, what would that look like?
● What do you think your organization should do?

212

Attachment 2: KMO Influences

Table A1
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type Knowledge influence Influence code
Conceptual Administrative staff need to understand what constitutes
workplace incivility and workplace civility.
K-C-1
Conceptual Administrative staff need to understand the negative
impact of workplace incivility.
K-C-2
Metacognitive Administrative staff need to know and be able to reflect
on their behaviors in order to maximize civility in the
workplace.
K-M-1

Table A2
Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Motivation influence Influence code
Self-efficacy Administrative staff need to believe in their
ability to demonstrate civility in the
workplace.
M-1
Social modeling

Administrative staff need to see others around
them modeling civil behavior in order to be
motivated to demonstrate civility themselves.
M-2
Utility value

Administrative staff need to value civility as a
component of their success at work.
M-3
Achievement emotions Administrative staff need to experience
positive emotions if they are to demonstrate
civility.
M-4

213

Table A3
Motivation Influences
Organizational influence
category
Organizational influence Influence code
Cultural Model Higher education institutions need to foster a
civil working environment.
O-1
Cultural Model Higher education institutions need to foster a
culture of psychological safety and trust in
order to lay the groundwork for a civil
working environment.
O-2
Cultural Setting Higher education institutions need to provide
resources, support, and training for
administrative staff to manage and cope with
the impacts of an uncivil work environment.
O-3
Cultural Setting Higher education institutions need to offer
administrative staff regular opportunities to
discuss civility in their workgroups.
O-4

214

Appendix B: Communications
Message 1: LinkedIn Message/Email to Request Participation

Subject: I’d like to interview you about workplace culture in higher education

Dear [NAME],

For the last two years, I have been working on my doctorate in organizational change and leadership
at the University of Southern California. As part of my doctorate, I am required to complete an
original piece of research (referred to as a dissertation). For my dissertation, I am researching how
we can improve civility (i.e., politeness and respect) within higher education workplaces. Research
has shown that when people experience incivility (i.e., rudeness and disrespect) at work, there are all
kinds of negative consequences that result, both for the individual and the organization.

My research involves interviewing between 12 and 15 administrative staff who work at American
universities. Given your role, you fit this bill perfectly. Accordingly, I would be very interested in
hearing about your workplace experiences with incivility and learning your opinions on how we can
improve civility within the higher education workplace.

Should you choose to participate, the interview will last around an hour and will take place via
Zoom. The interview will be recorded but only so that it can be transcribed for analysis. As soon it
has been transcribed, the recording will be deleted. I will be the only person who reads the transcript,
and when I write up my findings, your identity will remain completely confidential. I will be using
pseudonyms for people’s names and for their institutions, and I will make sure that no other
information that might indirectly identify participants appears in the dissertation. Your involvement
is completely voluntary, and you can drop out of the process at any point. In return for your
participation, I will share an initial report of my findings with you.

If you are interested in participating, please reply to this message or email me at pcates@usc.edu and
we can arrange a date and time for the interview. Thank you so much for your consideration!

Kind regards,

Patrick Cates

Message 2: Email to Confirm Participation

Subject: Confirming participation in interview workplace culture in higher education

Dear [NAME],

Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in my research study! As I mentioned in my initial
message, I would like to interview you about your experiences of incivility at work and about
your opinions on how civility can be increased in higher education workplaces.
The interview will take place on Zoom and last around an hour. To that end, if you are able to
send me three one-hour slots during which you might be available over the next few weeks, that
215

would be very helpful. Once we agree on a date and time, I will send you a separate email with
the Zoom meeting details.

In the meantime, I am attaching an Information Sheet for Exempt Research, which formally
summarizes the nature of the research study and describes your involvement in it. If you have
any questions, please contact me (pcates@usc.edu) or my advisor Dr. Alexandra Wilcox
(amwilcox@usc.edu).

Kind regards,

Patrick Cates

Message 3: Email to Thank Participant and Request Recommendations Participants

Subject: Thank you!

Dear [NAME],

Thank you so much for participating in the interview! I thoroughly enjoyed hearing your insights
and I greatly appreciate your input into my research study. As I mentioned at the end of the
interview, at some point in the coming couple of months, I will be sharing a report with you that
summarizes my findings. I also want to remind you that the video recording of the interview will
be deleted as soon as it has been transcribed and I will be the only person who reads the
transcript. In addition, whatever findings emerge during the study will be written up in a way that
maintains your anonymity and that of your institution.

Many thanks again for your involvement!

Kind regards,

Patrick Cates

216

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
The information sheet below will be shared with every participant in the study prior to
their being interviewed.
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Increasing Workplace Civility in Higher Education
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Patrick Cates
FACULTY ADVISOR: Alexandra Wilcox, JD, MFA, EdD
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to address the problem of workplace incivility in higher
education institutions. Workplace incivility refers to rude and disrespectful employee behavior
that falls short of bullying and aggression, and that may or may not be intended to cause harm
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Workplace incivility has been shown to have a negative impact on
individuals’ emotions and mental health (Porath & Pearson, 2012) and it has been associated
with poor job performance (Zhang et al., 2018), high turnover (Sguera et al., 2016), and
absenteeism (Welbourne & Sariol, 2017). We hope to learn how higher education administrative
staff experience incivility and how civility can be increased in higher education workplaces. You
have been invited to participate because you have been an administrative staff member at a
university for at least three years.

217

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you have the right at any time and
for any purpose, to withdraw from the study.
You will be interviewed as a part of this study. The interview will be conducted via the
Zoom video conferencing platform at a time that is convenient for you. The interview will last
approximately one hour. With your permission, the interview will be recorded so that it can be
transcribed later.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, Patrick Cates and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox (faculty
advisor), and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access
the study data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare
of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published, no identifiable information about you or
your institution will be used. All information about your participation will be confidential. You
will have the opportunity to strike anything from the record before the end of the interview.
After the interview is complete, the video recording will be transcribed using a third-
party transcription service. Once the transcript is available, the video recording will be deleted.
You have the right to review the transcript after the interview to determine if there is anything
that you wish to edit, or do not want to be included in the data analysis. The transcript will be
stored in encrypted form on a laptop, and it will be destroyed at the end of the study.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Patrick Cates (pcates@usc.edu)
or Dr. Alexandra Wilcox (amwilcox@usc.edu).
218

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at 323-442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

219

Appendix D: Data Collection Crosswalk
Assumed influence Interview question(s) Research question
Administrative staff need to
understand what
constitutes workplace
incivility and workplace
civility. [K-C-1]
Have you heard the phrase
“workplace incivility? If
so, what does it mean to
you? What does being
treated badly by a
supervisor or coworker
look like to you? [IQ-2]

What does being treated
well look like? [IQ-3]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
Administrative staff need to
understand the negative
impact of workplace
incivility. [K-C-2]
Thinking of times when
you’ve been treated badly
at work, what effect did
this treatment have on
you? [IQ-4]

When someone is treated
badly, what effect does it
have on the team, on the
department, and on the
organization? [IQ-5]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
Administrative staff need to
know and be able to
reflect on their behaviors
in order to maximize
civility in the workplace.
[K-M-1]
How does your behavior
affect the people around
you at work? [IQ-6]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
Administrative staff need to
believe in their ability to
demonstrate civility in the
workplace. [M-1]
What conditions make it
hard? [IQ-7]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
220

Assumed influence Interview question(s) Research question
Administrative staff need to
see others around them
modeling civil behavior in
order to be motivated to
demonstrate civility
themselves. [M-2]
Are there any people in
your organization who
model civil behavior?
Without naming names,
just positions, who are
they and in what
capacities do they work?
What do they do that
models civil behavior?
[IQ-8]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
Administrative staff need to
value civility as a
component of their
success at work. [M-3]
How important is it for you
to behave civilly towards
your colleagues? If you
treat someone badly, what
impact does it have on
how successful you are at
your job? [IQ-9]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
Administrative staff need to
experience positive
emotions if they are to
demonstrate civility. [M-
4]
What helps you experience
more positive emotions at
work? What factors
contribute to those
conditions? [IQ-10]
What are the knowledge and
skills, and motivation needs of
administrative staff that must
be considered when designing
a program that decreases
workplace incivility and
increases workplace civility in
higher education institutions?
[RQ-1]
221

Assumed influence Interview question(s) Research question
Higher education
institutions need to foster
a civil working
environment. [O-1]
What recommendations do
you have for things your
organization could do to
foster a more respectful or
civil working
environment? [IQ-11]
How do organizational culture
and context support or hinder
workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher
education institutions? [RQ-2]

What are the recommendations
for organizational practice in
the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and
organizational resources that
can drive the design of a
program that increases
workplace civility and
decreases workplace incivility
experienced by administrative
staff at higher education
institutions? [RQ-3]
Higher education
institutions need to foster
a culture of psychological
safety and trust in order to
lay the groundwork for a
civil working
environment. [O-2]
On a scale of 1-10, how
much do you trust the
people you work with on
a day-to-day basis? What
factors contribute to your
score? What conditions
would make your score
even higher? With respect
to psychological safety,
how could you feel even
more safe in your current
work environment? [IQ-
12]
How do organizational culture
and context support or hinder
workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher
education institutions? [RQ-2]

What are the recommendations
for organizational practice in
the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and
organizational resources that
can drive the design of a
program that increases
workplace civility and
decreases workplace incivility
experienced by administrative
staff at higher education
institutions? [RQ-3]
222

Assumed influence Interview question(s) Research question
Higher education
institutions need to
provide resources, support
and training for
administrative staff to
manage and cope with the
impacts of an uncivil work
environment. [O-3]
Does your organization
provide staff resources to
help staff deal with being
treated rudely or
disrespectfully by
coworkers and
supervisors? What are
these resources? What
recommendations do you
have for resources your
organization could
provide staff? [IQ-13]
How do organizational culture
and context support or hinder
workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher
education institutions? [RQ-2]

What are the recommendations
for organizational practice in
the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and
organizational resources that
can drive the design of a
program that increases
workplace civility and
decreases workplace incivility
experienced by administrative
staff at higher education
institutions? [RQ-3]
Higher education
institutions need to offer
administrative staff
regular opportunities to
discuss civility in their
workgroups. [O-4]
Do you currently have
conversations with your
colleagues about your
work environment? Do
you discuss civility, or the
types of behavior
exhibited by colleagues?
Does your organization
provide you with
opportunities to discuss
civility in your
workgroups? Would it be
helpful to you if they did?
What would you
recommend with respect
to these kinds of
conversations? [IQ-14]
How do organizational culture
and context support or hinder
workplace civility for
administrative staff in higher
education institutions? [RQ-2]

What are the recommendations
for organizational practice in
the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and
organizational resources that
can drive the design of a
program that increases
workplace civility and
decreases workplace incivility
experienced by administrative
staff at higher education
institutions? [RQ-3]

223

Appendix E: The Workplace Incivility Scale
Cortina et al.’s (2001) Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) is a questionnaire that asks
respondents how often within a given time period (e.g., the past six months) they have been in a
situation where any of their superiors or coworkers have engaged in the following seven
behaviors:
• Put you down or was condescending to you
• Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion
• Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you
• Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately
• Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie
• Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility
• Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters
For each item, respondents choose one of the following answers on a 0-4 scale:
• Never (0)
• Once or twice (1)
• Sometimes (2)
• Often (3)
• Most of the time (4)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Workplace incivility refers to rude and disrespectful behavior that falls short of bullying and aggression, and that may or may not be intended to cause harm. Workplace incivility is an issue that affects a wide range of industries globally and it can have a negative impact on employees’ physical and mental health. In addition, because incivility is associated with decreased work performance, increased absenteeism, and increased turnover, dealing with it can cost organizations millions of dollars. This study addressed the problem of workplace incivility in higher education. More specifically, it used the Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors underlying the perpetuation of incivility in higher education institutions. Administrative staff in a range of American universities were interviewed about their experiences of incivility. This data was then analyzed and synthesized with relevant research literature to generate a set of recommendations for increasing civility in higher education environments. These recommendations were then integrated into a design for a new civility improvement program called POCUS (the Program for Optimizing Civility in University Settings).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

PDF

The impact of workplace incivility on the retention of nurses in hospitals

PDF

"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

PDF

Addressing physician burnout: is there a relationship with leadership behaviors?

PDF

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

PDF

Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education

PDF

Leadership and patient safety culture

PDF

The impact of toxic behaviors by queen bees and their in-group on national sorority member involvement

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

IRB insiders: perspectives from within the institutional review board

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

Asset Metadata

Creator Cates, Patrick (author)

Core Title Increasing workplace civility in higher education: a field study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/12/2021

Defense Date 06/29/2021

Tag civility,incivility,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational behavior,organizational culture,organizational trust,psychological safety,workplace civility,workplace culture,workplace incivility

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wilcox, Alexandra (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email 230429@gmail.com,pcates@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15293615

Unique identifier UC15293615

Legacy Identifier etd-CatesPatri-9719

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cates\, Patrick

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu