Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace

Introduction to Workplace Incivility

This article introduces the concept of workplace incivility and explores its potential to escalate into more aggressive behaviors.
It examines the starting and tipping points of an "incivility spiral" and discusses factors that facilitate its occurrence and escalation.
The authors propose research propositions and discuss implications for researchers and practitioners.

The Concept of Civility

Civility has traditionally been seen as a source of power in American culture.
It is a means of gaining favor, asserting cultural superiority, and attaining social advantage.
Civility serves to soften divisions between rich and poor and employers and employees.
Scholarly work links civility to:
- Providing answers to unanswered questions of conduct.
- The necessity for ritualized behavior in light of divorce (Johnson, 1988).
- The foundation for human rationality necessary for successful education (Shulman & Carey, 1984).
- The courteous treatment of professional colleagues in correspondence and feedback (Roberts, 1985).
Civility is not only functional but also holds moral implications, rooted in respect for fellow human beings.
Carter (1998) defines civility as "the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together."
Wilson (1993) views it as "a way of signaling the existence of self-control."
Norms for cooperative behavior exist in every community and culture.
Civility, as a moral standard, can be considered a virtue.
The need for civility increases with the complexity and frequency of interactions (Carter, 1998; Chen & Eastman, 1997; Elias, 1982; Erickson, 1962; Goffman, 1967).

The Growing Challenge to Civility

Relationships are increasingly mediated by high-tech, asynchronous, global interaction.
There is a growing need for increased civility in complex interactions.
A recent poll revealed that 90% of Americans think incivility is a serious problem (Marks, 1996).
Some believe we now support an ethic of self-expression, detesting the pretense of civility (Gordon, 1989; Morris, 1996; Steinberg, 1996; Wilson, 1993).
The dawn of the twenty-first century may be viewed as a time of thoughtless acts and rudeness.
Etiquette experts are proliferating to spread the gospel of good manners (Hamilton & Sullivan, 1997; Martin, 1996).

Incivility in the Business World

The business world was once considered a bastion of civility.
Relationships between coworkers were characterized by formality, friendliness, distance, and politeness.
Business has started to reflect the informality of society.
Factors causing increased uncivil and aggressive behaviors:
- Employee diversity.
- Reengineering.
- Downsizing.
- Budget cuts.
- Increased pressures for productivity.
- Autocratic work environments.
- The use of part-time employees (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Chen & Eastman, 1997; Neuman & Baron, 1997).
Organizations have flattened and gone casual, leading to fewer cues for "proper" business behavior (Martin, 1996; Morand, 1998).
Examples of incivility in the workplace:
- Answering the phone with a "yeah."
- Neglecting to say thank you or please.
- Using voice mail to screen calls.
- Leaving a half cup of coffee to avoid brewing the next pot.
- Standing impatiently over someone's desk during a phone conversation.
- Dropping trash and leaving it for maintenance.
- Talking loudly on the phone about personal matters (Martin, 1996).
As workplace interaction increases, discourteous behavior has more nuances.

Research on Workplace Aggression and Violence

Research has focused on physical, active, and direct forms of aggression (Folger, Robinson, Dietz, McLean Parks, & Baron, 1998; O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Perlow & Latham, 1993; Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1996; VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996).
Data confirms aggression and violence occur in the American workplace.
Over 20% of HR managers reported workplace violence since 1990 (Romano, 1994).
33% reported threats of violence (Romano, 1994).
Estimated 2.2 million U.S. workers were victims of physical attacks, 6.3 million were threatened, and 16.1 million were harassed in a 12-month period ending in 1993 (Northwestern National Life Insurance Company, 1993).
An average of over 2 million physical assaults and over 1,000 homicides occur in the workplace per year (Segal, 1994).
Little research has been conducted on lesser forms of mistreatment (Neuman & Baron, 1997).
A survey of 178 employees revealed that most aggression is verbal, passive, indirect, and subtle (Baron & Neuman, 1996).
Similar findings in other studies:
- Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Hjelt-Back (1994) found 32% of respondents observed verbally harassing behavior.
- Ehrlich & Larcom (1994) found over half of 327 respondents experienced mistreatment at work within 3 years.
- Graydon, Kasta, and Khan (1994) found 33% of Toronto nurses experienced verbal abuse during their previous 5 days of work.

The Significance of Incivility

Less intense forms of mistreatment, like incivilities, deserve scholarly attention.
It is important to explore whether they can be precursors to more intense, overtly aggressive, and/or violent acts (Baron & Neuman, 1996; MacKinnon, 1994).
91% of the American public believes incivility contributes to increased violence (Marks, 1996).
Research shows incivilities are highly correlated with crime, progressing to more serious levels (Goldstein, 1994; Taylor & Gottfredson, 1986).
Felson and Steadman (1983) revealed that assaults begin with rude comments that escalate to physical attacks.
Spratlen (1994) found workplace mistreatment directly related to interpersonal violence.
Violence is rarely spontaneous but often the culmination of escalating negative interactions (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Kinney, 1995).

Defining Civility and Incivility

The terms civility and incivility have become overused and sometimes misconstrued.
"Civility" has transcended its dictionary definition of "courtesy and politeness toward fellow human beings."
Civil behavior involves treating others with dignity, acting with regard for others' feelings, and preserving social norms for mutual respect (Carter, 1998; Elias, 1982; Johnson, 1988; Morris, 1996).
Observing formal rules of etiquette is less important than being polite and demonstrating concern (Carter, 1998).
Workplace civility is behavior involving politeness and regard for others in the workplace, within workplace norms for respect.

Workplace Civility vs. Similar Behaviors

Workplace civility is distinct from:
- Prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
- Organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988).
- Ingratiation (Yukl & Falbe, 1990).
- Concern for others (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987).
Like extrarole behaviors, civility includes modest, trivial behaviors without public scrutiny (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995).
Unlike prosocial/citizenship behaviors, workplace civility does not necessarily imply intent to benefit the organization.
Civility differs from ingratiation because it doesn't inherently involve intent to influence.
Civility differs from the work value "concern for others" (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987); civility is a behavior that helps preserve norms for mutual respect.

Defining Incivility

"Incivility" has taken on a variety of nuances.
The dictionary definition of incivility is "the quality or condition of being uncivil, uncivil behavior or treatment" and uncivil as "without good manners, unmannerly, rude, impolite, discourteous."
Incivility implies rudeness and disregard for others, violating norms for respect (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Morris, 1996).
In criminology, incivilities are "low-level breaches of community standards that signal an erosion of conventionally accepted norms and values" (LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992: 311-312).
Uncivil behavior is conspicuous, whereas civil behavior is often unnoticed (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Sapir, 1927).
Workplace incivility involves acting with disregard for others in the workplace, violating workplace norms for respect.
Workplace norms consist of basic moral standards and traditions, including those prescribed by formal and informal organizational policies, rules, and procedures (Feldman, 1984; Hartman, 1996).
Norms differ across organizations, industries, and cultures, but every workplace has norms for respect for coworkers.
Workplace incivility is behavior that disrupts mutual respect in the workplace.

Incivility and Other Forms of Mistreatment

Mistreatment in organizations has been described as:
- Aggressive (Baron & Neuman, 1996; O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996).
- Violent (Kinney, 1995; VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996).
- Harassing (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994).
- Physically abusive (Perlow & Latham, 1993).
- Tyrannical (Ashforth, 1994).
- Deviant (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997).
- Antisocial (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997).
Some concepts capture more intense forms with obvious intent to harm.
Some represent norm violations, while others do not.

Aggression vs. Violence

Aggression is attempted injurious or destructive behavior, violating social norms.
Violence is a high-intensity, physical form of aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996; VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996).
Acts of workplace aggression range from vandalism and sabotage to harassment, physical abuse, and homicide (Neuman & Baron, 1997).
The common aspect is the obvious intent to harm physically or psychologically (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).

Incivility's Intent

A distinguishing characteristic of incivility is that the intent to harm is ambiguous.
One may behave uncivilly with or without intent to harm.
Instigators can deny or bury any intent in ignorance of the effect.
The intent is not transparent and is subject to varying interpretation (e.g., Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997; Kramer, 1994; Morrill, 1992).

Incivility vs. Petty Tyranny, Deviant Behavior, and Antisocial Behavior

Incivility is similar in intensity to petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), demonstrating a lack of consideration with ambiguous intent to harm.
Petty tyranny refers to more intense negative behaviors associated with abuse of authority.
Deviant employee behavior is voluntary behavior that violates organizational norms and threatens well-being (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; 556).
Antisocial employee behavior brings harm to an organization, its employees, or stakeholders (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997: vii).
Antisocial behavior is inclusive of all forms of mistreatment.
Deviant behavior is a type of antisocial behavior that violates workplace norms and includes employee aggression and incivility.
Aggression includes violence and some forms of incivility (those with intent to harm, but ambiguous).

Defining Workplace Incivility

Workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, violating workplace norms for mutual respect.
Uncivil behaviors are rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others.
Incivility is an interactive event—involving instigator(s), target(s), observer(s), and the social context (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Carter, 1998).
A social interactionist perspective is adopted for incivility and its escalation.

Tedeschi & Felson's Theory of Coercive Actions

Tedeschi and Felson (1994) offer a social interactionist perspective on aggression and violence.
They integrate aggression and violence into the concept of "coercive action," action taken with the intent of imposing harm.
Coercive actions include threats to maligning insults, violence, and homicide.
Incivilities can be exchanged between individuals and emerge into an exchange of coercive actions.
A social interactionist perspective emphasizes interpersonal and situational factors in the exchange of incivilities and coercive actions.
This perspective allows examination of incivility and coercive action as processes rather than as events.
Specific workplace norms vary, but norms for mutual respect are necessary for employees to work together (Hartman, 1996; Solomon, 1998).

The Incivility Spiral

Spirals or circular patterns explain organizational phenomena.
Scholars have used spirals to explain organizational decline (Hambrick & D'Aveni, 1988; Masuch, 1985), efficacy and performance (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995), and tyrannical leadership (Ashforth, 1994).
Spirals are created by human actors lacking understanding or unwillingness to alter behavior (Masuch, 1985).
Escalation of incivility into coercive action is deviation amplifying.
Interpersonal conflict spirals are well documented (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1995; Felson & Steadman, 1983; Luckenbill, 1977; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Youngs, 1986).
Coercion leads to countercoercion, escalating the spiral.
Stakes rise, and inhibitions are reduced (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).
Little theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to the mechanisms underlying escalation (Kim & Smith, 1993).
Baron and Neuman (1996) posited that verbal or less intense acts of "aggression" serve as the initial step in an upward spiral.
Workplace incivility can be a factor in the formation and escalation of conflict spirals.

The Starting Point of the Spiral

Violent incidents usually begin when someone believes a norm has been violated (Felson, 1982).
Incivility, as a breach of norms for mutual respect, can engender perceptions of interactional injustice (Bies, in press; Bies & Moag, 1986).
Perceptions of unfairness create negative affect and stimulate a desire to reciprocate (Berkowitz, 1993; Bies & Tripp, 1995; Donnerstein & Hatfield, 1982; Kim & Smith, 1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
Negative affect causes less attentiveness to politeness norms (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
The most common means of releasing negative affect is to reciprocate with further unfairness (Donnerstein & Hatfield, 1982; Kim & Smith, 1993).
An incivility spiral may begin when employee A performs an uncivil act toward employee B.
Employee B perceives the incivility and interprets it as interactional injustice.
This leads to negative affect stimulating a desire to reciprocate.
Employee B performs an uncivil act in response.
Either party may choose departure as an alternative.
Incivility is inherently disruptive to social equilibrium (Goffman, 1967).

Propositions

Proposition 1: Perception of interactional injustice will increase the probability of an incivility spiral.
Proposition 2: Feelings of negative affect will increase the probability of an incivility spiral.
Proposition 3: Desire to reciprocate incivility will increase the probability of an incivility spiral.

The Tipping Point of the Spiral

Gouldner (1960) postulated a norm of reciprocity: people should help those who have helped them and not harm those who help them.
Helm, Bonoma, and Tedeschi (1972) demonstrated a negative norm of reciprocity: counteraggression is a direct function of initial aggression.
When initial aggression is perceived as unprovoked, the target employs counteraggression for revenge.
Punishment may be more severe than the crime (Helm et al., 1972).
Youngs (1986) concluded that overmatching during initial stages may be key to the explosiveness of spirals.
Ordinary conflict can suddenly develop into a crisis.
Epidemiologists use the term "tipping point" to describe sudden escalation.
The tipping point can refer to a change in scope (escalation) or composition (alteration of form).
The concept can be applied to individual-level phenomena.
The tipping point is where the individual feels threatened and loses motivation to maintain control.
The tipping point is the relatively infrequent occasion in which an exchange of incivilities escalates into coercive actions.
Identity threat is perceived, prompting a more intense behavioral response.
It escapes the confines of incivility and crosses into the realm of coercive action.
One party perceives an identity threat or a loss of face, and the spiral suddenly escalates (Felson, 1982).
Identities play an important role in escalation (Felson & Steadman, 1983; Luckenbill, 1977).
One's desired identity is the combination of attributes and social identities one wants to present (Erez & Earley, 1993).
In times of conflict, an image of strength is important (Tjosvold, 1983).
Schlenker (1980) states that individuals engage in protective self-presentation (coercive actions) when desired identities are threatened.
Perception of incivility as destructive criticism, insult, or threat can lead to coercive behavior (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Affective response is usually anger (Averill, 1983; Berkowitz, 1993; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994); the behavioral response can be revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1995; Bies et al., 1997; Felson, 1982; Morrill, 1992).
Revenge is the expression of perceived loss of face and anger, a claim of socially valued attributes.
Revenge is intended to have harmful consequences (Bies et al., 1997; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) and can restore one's sense of self-worth (Kim & Smith, 1993; Tjosvold, 1983).
The level of revenge is a function of perceived harm to identity (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Nonproportional revenge occurs, creating grounds for a fresh attack (e.g., Felson & Steadman, 1983; Helm et al., 1972; Youngs, 1986).

Propositions

Proposition 4: Perception of a damaged social identity will increase the probability of escalation of an incivility spiral.
Proposition 5: Feelings of anger will increase the probability of escalation of an incivility spiral.
Proposition 6: Desire for revenge will increase the probability of escalation of an incivility spiral.

Facilitators of the Incivility Spiral

Characteristics of individuals and features of the social context can inhibit or facilitate an aggressive exchange.
Two facilitators: "hot" temperament and a workplace climate of informality.

The "Hot" Temperament

Temperament refers to relatively unchanged behavioral characteristics.
Self-regulatory capacity, emotional reactivity, and rebelliousness are key dimensions.
Impulsives are more likely to use verbal slurs and coercive actions (Baumeister et al., 1994; Hynan & Grush, 1986).
Emotionally reactive individuals are highly sensitive to insults and perceive threats easily (Berkowitz, 1993; Buss, 1961; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Rebellious individuals perceive more irritants and are more likely to use uncivil or coercive behaviors (Buss, 1961).

Proposition

Proposition 7: The probability of occurrence/escalation is enhanced if one or more parties has a hot temperament.

Climate of Informality

Organizational climate refers to observable practices and procedures (Schneider & Reichers, 1983).
Climate of informality to stimulate creativity may inadvertently encourage disrespectful behavior (Martin, 1996; Morand, 1998).
Formality/informality is expressed through dress, word choice, conversational patterns, cues, expression, decor, and architecture (Morand, 1998).
In a formal climate, there is little ambiguity regarding acceptable behavior (Elias, 1982; Martin, 1996; Morand, 1998).
Without formality, employees may have trouble maintaining their professional distance (Goffman, 1967; Morand, 1998).

Proposition

Proposition 8: The probability of occurrence/escalation is enhanced if the interaction takes place in an organization with an informal climate.

Secondary Incivility Spirals

Norms for civil behavior erode (Carter, 1998).
Spirals spawn secondary spirals throughout the organization (Masuch, 1985).
They are also spawned by negative response to incivility and coercive acts.
Employees become aware of mounting incivility, leading to negative affect, distrust, and fear (Carter, 1998; MacKinnon, 1994).

Propositions

Proposition 9: Observation of an incivility spiral will increase the probability of a secondary spiral.
Proposition 10: Observation of a negative response to uncivil behavior will increase the probability of a secondary spiral.

Uncivil Organizations

Does an organization become an "uncivil organization?"
An organization may become "uncivil" once incivility spirals reach a critical threshold.
"Explosive clusters" of incivility may occur (Masuch, 1985).
Employees perceive loss of identity as members and feel that the organization is coercive.
When a majority believe the organization intends to harm or discount them, the organization itself may become an uncivil entity (Kamp & Brooks, 1991).

Conclusion and Implications

The majority of mistreatment acts are more subtle than physical violence (Neuman & Baron, 1997).
Workplace incivility accounts for lesser forms of mistreatment with ambiguous intent to harm.
It is behavior characterized by rudeness and disregard, violating norms for mutual respect.
It can spiral from perception and reciprocation, escalating to coercive actions when one party reaches a tipping point.
A hot temperament and climate of informality may facilitate spirals that may spawn secondary spirals.

Research Implications

It is aligned with research viewing aggression as stemming from social interactions (e.g., Folger et al., 1998; O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1996).
It defines a behavior that may be a precursor to aggression and proposes that forms of mistreatment are related as a system.

Future Research

Tests of propositions require a valid and reliable measure of incivility.
Development of the incivility measure and testing of propositions should be a multimethod endeavor.
A key objective is to empirically distinguish incivility from similar workplace behaviors.
Alternatives to self-report measures should be developed.
Varying perspectives of multiple parties should be considered.
Further research into the construct of workplace incivility is desired.
How does the fast-paced and global work environment spawn incivility?
How might incivility affect client/network relationships and temporary workers?
How do facilitators of incivility interact?
Do specific behaviors differ among cultures?

Practical Implications

There is a market in doing business considerately (Martin, 1996; Solomon, 1998).
A certain level of civility is fundamental to operation.
An organization characterized by rudeness can make workers miserable (Kamp & Brooks, 1991; Neuman & Baron, 1997).
Incivility spirals can damage organizations, careers, and people (Masuch, 1985).

Managerial Applications

The spiral framework provides a starting point for assessing factors contributing to incivility.
Managers can evaluate how their own behaviors contribute.
Organizations should attempt to recruit and hire people who may be expected to facilitate polite interaction.
Organizations wishing to curtail incivility must address acts of interpersonal rudeness swiftly and justly.
Setting policies and reinforcing norms that inhibit the interaction could reduce rudeness.

Conclusion

Workplace incivility seems to be spreading.
Workplace incivility, as a negative behavior with moral implications, deserves more scholarly attention.
The ways in which incivility affects organizational productivity and employee well-being have yet to be tested.
Organizations have much to gain by understanding the factors that disrupt mutual respect and prompt aggression.