1. Literature Definition and Differentiating Dimensions
1.1. Guiding Definition: "Low intensity, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm" (Pearson et al, 2000)
1.2. 蠀? Workplace Aggression (Cox and Leather, 1994; Hershcovis, 2011; Lawrence and Leather, 1999; Pearson et al, 2000)
1.2.1. Workplace Aggression (e.g. bullying, sexual harassment, assault, verbal abuse, etc.) - EXPLICIT
1.2.2. Workplace Incivility (being treated like a child, being reprimanded in public, leaving people to clean up after other people's messes, etc.) - AMBIGUOUS
1.3. Differentiating Dimensions (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Gottlieb, 1997a, 1997b; Lazarus and Folkman, 1894; Lazarus, 1999)
1.3.1. Variety
1.3.1.1. 蜳? WI impact
1.3.1.2. Preparatory Response Hypothesis
1.3.2. Frequency
1.3.2.1. 蜳? WI impact
1.3.2.2. Wear and Tear of cognitive and emotional capacities
1.3.3. Duration
1.3.3.1. 蜳? WI impact
1.3.3.2. Wear and Tear of cognitive and emotional capacities
1.4. Types (Pearson et al, 2000)
1.4.1. Non-escalating
1.4.2. Escalating
1.4.3. Cascading
1.4.3.1. Indirect displacement
1.4.3.2. Direct Displacement
1.4.3.3. Word of mouth
2. Effects
2.1. 蜳? dissatisfaction of employees at work (Cortina et al, 2001)
2.1.1. “Snowball / Popcorn effect” - enduring daily hassle with negative effect over time (Cortina et al, 2001; De Longis et al, 1982; Ester and Wang, 2008; Folger and Skarlicki, 1998; Kanner et al, 1981; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)
2.1.1.1. Individual (Anderson and Pearson, 1999; Barling, 1996; Barling and Philipps, 1993; Bettencourt and Brown, 1997; Bies and Tripp, 1995; Dittrich and Carrell, 1979; Donovan et al, 1998; Einarsen and Raknes, 1997; Greenberg, 1990; Folger and Skarlicki, 1997, 1998; Hershcovis et al, 2017; Keashley et al, 1994; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Leather et al, 1997; Moorman, 1991; Notalaers et al, 2006; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Pearson et al, 2000; Smith et al, 1983; Tarraf and MacLarnon, 2018; )
2.1.1.1.1. Disrupts work patterns and effectiveness
2.1.1.1.2. Reduce employees' well-being
2.1.1.1.3. Induce feeling of isolation and embarrassment
2.1.1.1.4. Negative mood
2.1.1.1.5. Cognitive distraction
2.1.1.1.6. Lower work satisfaction
2.1.1.1.7. Decline in organizational citizenship behaviors
2.1.1.1.8. Diminish organizational commitment
2.1.1.1.9. Decline in disruptive justice
2.1.1.1.10. Push in organizational retaliation behavior and aggression
2.1.1.1.11. Promote absenteeism
2.1.1.1.12. Heighten turnover intentions
2.1.1.1.13. Induce work-related malaise and strain
2.1.1.1.14. Spiral into increasingly aggressive behavior
2.1.1.2. Organization (Adams, 1988; Baba et al, 1998; Cartwright and Cooper, 1997; Cortina et al, 2001; Jacobsen et al, 1996; Kompier et al, 1998; Lim and Cortina, 2005; Pearson et al, 2000; Pearson and Porath, 2004, 2005; Quick et al, 1992; Smither, 1998)
2.1.1.2.1. Monetary losses
2.1.1.2.2. Contributary to sexual harassment
2.1.1.2.3. Diminishing loyalty
2.1.1.2.4. Decreased job involvement, satisfaction and commitment
2.1.1.2.5. Performance and production decline
2.1.1.2.6. Tardiness and absenteeism
2.1.1.2.7. Increased sick leaves and health claims
2.1.1.2.8. Turnover intention and rates
3. Causes (Pearson et al, 2000; Pearson and Porath, 2005)
3.1. Changing nature at work
3.2. Having too many work relationships vs personal capability
3.3. Complicated nature of work relationships
3.4. Dehumanized work environments
3.4.1. Socially diluted environments
3.5. Work overload
3.6. Cost cutting
3.7. Nature of actual tenure
3.8. Loss of formality in workplaces
3.9. Fast-paced nature of modern workspaces
4. Statistics (Pearson et al, 2000)
4.1. Studies yield varying info!!!
4.1.1. Different instruments
4.1.2. Huge dearth in literature
4.1.3. Overlapping / differing definition
4.1.4. Sample Variances: 75% experience WI in half-year vs 50% Male + 30% female in half-year vs 19% in one year vs 134% in 5 years/
4.2. Sample Statistics
4.2.1. 50% lost time worrying due to WI
4.2.2. 25% lost time avoiding instigator
4.2.2.1. Reroute foot traffic
4.2.2.2. Withdrawal from collaborative work
4.2.3. 30% limited fruitful labor to expected minimum
4.2.3.1. Only what's within job desc.
4.2.3.2. Avoided addtl tasks
4.2.4. 25% intentionally doing less workl
4.2.5. 5 % stole from instigator as revenge
4.2.6. 50% contemplated departure
4.2.7. 12 actually left citing WI as direct cause
4.2.7.1. WI most of the time not cited as cause, however
4.2.7.1.1. Takes months/years for target to leave due to WI
4.2.7.1.2. Targets…
5. Targets (Barling, 1996; Carli, 1999; Cleaveland and Kerst, 1993; Cortina et al, 2001; Cortina and Magley, 2009; Coyne et al, 2000, 2003; French and Raven, 1959; Gottlieb, 1997a; Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Mainiero, 1986; McCrae and Costa, 1987; Milam et al, 2009; Ragins and Sundstrom, 1989; Thacker and Ferris, 1991; Wheaton, 1997)
5.1. Related to Social Power Theory
5.2. Likely because:
5.2.1. Publicly perceived as neurotic
5.2.2. Low extraversion
5.2.3. High conscientiousness
5.2.4. High Negative Affectivity
5.2.5. Low Positive Affectivity
5.3. Perception is key!
5.3.1. More skeptical/mistrustful people more likely to see an act as uncivil, therefore more likely to “experience” it.
5.3.2. Perception of how people respect each other in the concept of mutual respect (just world) may induce inequality thus incivility
5.3.3. Cognitive appraisal of an act determines the experience of WI
5.3.3.1. Affected by position!
5.3.3.1.1. High Position = security
5.3.3.1.2. Low position = learned helplessness
5.4. Coping (Cortina and Magley, 2009)
5.4.1. Coping mechanism is “embedded” and unique vs conventionally studied coping mechanisms
5.4.1.1. Results of various studies differ and is not transferrable
5.4.2. Detachment (>25%)
5.4.3. Assertive Conflict Avoidance (<25%)
5.4.4. Minimizing (>20%)
5.4.5. Prosocial Conflict Avoidance (<20%)
5.4.6. Support Seekers (<10%)
6. Instigators (Lim and Lee, 2011; Pearson et al, 2000, Piaget, 1965)
6.1. Demographics
6.1.1. Instigator 2x likely to be male
6.1.1.1. Manifestation of sexism (and possibly racism)
6.1.1.2. WI is device that perpetuates gender (and racial) disparities
6.1.2. Instigator 3x likely to be of higher rank
6.1.3. Men 7x more likely to be uncivil to lower rank
6.1.4. Women equally uncivil to superiors and subordinates but less likely to equals
6.1.5. Debunked: People are more uncivil to newcomers
6.1.5.1. Mean tenure of instigators & targets a few years from start of employment
6.1.6. Common in Asian cultures
6.1.7. For co-worker-initiated incivility, instigator (likely) has
6.1.7.1. Decreased co-worker satisfaction
6.1.7.2. Increased perception of unfair treatment
6.1.7.3. Increased depression
6.1.8. For superior-instigated incivility, instigator (likely) has
6.1.8.1. Decreased superior satisfaction
6.1.8.2. Increased work-to-family conflict
6.2. Instigator's ways
6.2.1. Higher ranks = more ways
6.2.1.1. Uses position as shield against correction
6.2.2. Lower ranks = less ways but more covert
6.2.2.1. Retaliates through org
7. Organizational Context (Cortina, 2008; Davenport et al, 1999; Ester and Wang, 2008; McGregor, 1960; Pearson et al, 2000; Pearson and Porath, 2005)
7.1. What management assumes acceptable affects work environments
7.2. People in power may tolerate or start WI
7.2.1. WI maintains power of higher ups
7.2.2. People in power encourage it as norm