Is rudeness really that common? An exploratory study of incivility at work

Abstract

Currently, most studies of incivility involve surveys and controlled laboratory experiments that focus on examining the associations between incivility and other variables. This method of investigation is important, but insufficient for developing a comprehensive understanding of such a complex and multifaceted construct. The present study explores employees' perceptions of rude workplace behavior from the perspective of real employees in managerial roles. It investigates the extent to which incivility is a prevalent issue faced by employees at work, examines the perceived impact of incivility on relational and productivity-related outcomes, and, finally, considers the potential differences between face-toface rudeness and electronic rudeness. A qualitative interview approach is used to explore and analyze employees' perceptions and investigate what employees think, feel, and say about their experiences with incivility at work.

Workplace incivility: a literature review

“…Such result suggests that this is a promising line of research. Thus far, the findings indicate that cause theoretical focus is closely intertwined with studies involving individuals high on neuroticism (Milam et al, 2009), conflicting styles (Trudel and Reio, 2011), lack of reciprocity (Meier and Semmer, 2013), position and personality, negative attributes of the perpetrator, impact on the victim, organizations' willful blindness (Doshy and Wang, 2014), psychological contract violation, particularly from supervisors and their employer (Sears and Humiston, 2015), simply witnessing incivility (Reich and Hershcovis, 2015), organizational change, job insecurity, low social support from co-workers, job demands, experienced incivility from co-workers (Torkelson et al, 2016), rude email and rude face-to-face encounters (McCarthy, 2016), customer incivility (Cho et al, 2016;Kim and Qu, 2019), workaholic behavior (Lanzo et al, 2016), higher job demands, higher levels of emotional exhaustion, decreased level of job satisfaction (Koon and Pun, 2018), neurotic behavior (Marchiondo et al, 2018a), performance pressure and ethical leadership (Jensen et al, 2019), among other constructs. I surmise that organizational disidentification, mistrust, toxic leaderships, for example, may be potential causes of WI that deserve further investigation.…”

Virtual work conditions impact negative work behaviors via ambiguity, anonymity, and (un)accountability: An integrative review.

“…Thus, employees are more likely to perceive CMC as uncivil (e.g., Kruger et al, 2005). Cyber-incivility has the potential to have a unique impact on victims due to the constant access to CMC, lack of social cues, and asynchronous or absent feedback (Byron, 2008; Kruger et al, 2005; K. A. McCarthy, 2016).…”

“…As one participant explained, “when somebody sends you that email you can read it over and over and over. And you can analyze it and try to figure it out if you want” (K. A. McCarthy, 2016, p. 6).…”

Quality of Experience in Telemeetings and Videoconferencing: A Comprehensive Survey

“…XR telemeetings may make it easy to forget the rules of human interaction and enable immersive experiences that might be harmful or unpleasant. This can happen via inappropriate communication behavior due to cultural differences of the participants or due to the lack of physical co-presence and the resulting behavior mediation -see, e.g., [410] on rudeness in social media or [411] [412] for existing industry guidelines on creating respectful, safe, inclusive, and accessible XR environments. One possible counter measure is the introduction of impenetrable personal zones to prevent that people can invade each others personal space, see, e.g., [413].…”