{"content_id":"0nc0p0ges0","slug":"workplace-incivility-team-performance-leadership","locale":"en","schema_type":"Article","category":"knowledge_base","category_name":"Knowledge Base","title":"Workplace Incivility: Team Performance and How to Respond","summary":"Workplace incivility can affect task performance not only for those who experience it directly but also for witnesses. This article explains what experimental figures mean and their limitations, how to distinguish work-related criticism from insults, and how to respond after a public reprimand.","sponsorship_disclosure":null,"affiliate_disclosure":null,"commerce_disclosure":null,"author":{"name":"Injoys Editorial Team","url":"https://injoys.com/ko/about"},"key_points":["Participants who witnessed incivility also showed lower task performance in experiments.","Percentage declines in experimental performance cannot be used as productivity loss rates in real companies.","Research on experiencing incivility directly and research on witnessing it differ in the pathways they identify to explain reduced performance.","When giving work-related feedback, focus on observed behavior and criteria for correction rather than judgments about the person.","If you have made rude remarks publicly, address the situation with both the person targeted and witnesses in mind."],"content_markdown":"Workplace incivility can disrupt not only the work of the person being criticized but also that of witnesses. In experiments, participants who witnessed incivility also performed worse on tasks. Leaders need to separate the content of feedback from expressions of emotion.\n\nThe percentages of performance decline are based on an experiment summary in a Georgetown University commentary published on November 27, 2018.\n\n## What is workplace incivility?\n\nWorkplace incivility refers to words or actions that violate norms of respect for others. This includes belittling or dismissive remarks. Remarks that put someone down can be uncivil even without shouting.\n\nPointing out a work error is not itself uncivil. The distinction lies in what the criticism targets and how it is expressed. Explaining what went wrong is different from putting someone down.\n\nThis article addresses the effects on work performance. It does not cover legal judgments about individual incidents. The research concept of incivility alone cannot determine whether a law has been broken.\n\n## How much did performance decline in the experiments?\n\nThe Georgetown University commentary describes performance declines under conditions involving both direct experience and witnessing incivility. The researchers are Christine Porath and Amir Erez. The following figures are differences between experimental conditions summarized in that commentary.\n\n| Condition of exposure to incivility | Word-building task performance | Number of creative ideas |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Participants treated dismissively by the experimenter | 33% lower than in the comparison condition | 39% lower than in the comparison condition |\n| Participants who witnessed an uncivil incident | 22% lower than in the comparison condition | 28% lower than in the comparison condition |\n\nThe word-building task involves rearranging given letters to form words. The number of creative ideas is a separate task measure. The two measures cannot be combined into a single percentage of productivity decline.\n\nThe figures in the table can be found in [Georgetown University's Civil Actions](https://msb.georgetown.edu/news-story/civil-actions/). This commentary was published on November 27, 2018. The publication date should not be taken as the date the experiments were conducted.\n\nThe main paper on direct experience was published in 2007. The follow-up paper on witnesses' performance was published in 2009. These figures are not statistics from a survey of today's workplaces as a whole.\n\n## Why even people who were not reprimanded may struggle to concentrate\n\nAn uncivil incident can draw witnesses' attention away from work and toward the incident. The researchers focused on interference with cognitive processes and negative emotions. However, the explanatory pathways identified in the two studies need to be distinguished.\n\nThe 2007 study provided evidence that interference with cognitive processes explained the performance decline. Cognitive processes are activities involved in remembering and processing information. Working memory temporarily holds information needed for an immediate task.\n\nThe explanation is that thoughts about how to interpret the situation can compete with work. This does not establish that all mental energy has been exhausted. Details of the study can be found in the [2007 paper](https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919).\n\nThe 2009 witness study identified a mediating role for negative emotions. This means that changes in emotion were a pathway explaining the performance decline. Explaining witnesses' reactions solely in terms of cognitive depletion misses this distinction.\n\nThe witness study also found a decrease in behavior that helped others. This shows that the effects were not limited to individual task performance. Details can be found in the [2009 paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597809000041).\n\n## Comparing work feedback and public reprimands\n\nWhen giving work feedback, communicate the verified problem and the standards for correcting it. Even a calm tone does not resolve the problem if the words belittle someone's abilities. Changing the location alone does not change the content of what is said.\n\nThe table below presents practical distinctions based on the research findings. It is not an experimental comparison of the effectiveness of each response. In actual conversations, consider the urgency of the work as well.\n\n| Criterion | Feedback aimed at solving a problem | Reprimands likely to become uncivil |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Target of criticism | Verified behavior or results | The person's overall ability or character |\n| Content conveyed | What is wrong and the standards for correcting it | Blame and expressions of emotion |\n| Way of communicating | Checking facts and offering a chance to explain | Interrupting or mocking |\n| Audience | People who need the information for work | Embarrassing someone in front of uninvolved people |\n| Follow-up | Checking corrections and support needed | Treating the matter as closed once the reprimand is over |\n\nWhen discussing individual responsibility, consider a private conversation first. Work standards that the whole team needs to know can be shared separately. There is no need to publicly reenact a particular person's mistake.\n\n## Common mistakes and interpreting research figures\n\nDirectly converting the experimental decline percentages into a company's financial losses goes beyond what the findings support. The research measured task performance under specified conditions. It did not predict that actual sales or annual productivity would change by the same percentages.\n\n| Common interpretation | What to check |\n| --- | --- |\n| One angry outburst reduces team productivity by 22% | The 22% refers to a task performance difference under a witness condition in a specific experiment |\n| Every witness experiences the same percentage decline in performance | Group-level results cannot be applied as individual predictions |\n| All lower scores are due to cognitive depletion | Distinguish the explanatory pathways in the direct-experience study and the witness study |\n| Holding back for a few seconds resolves anger | Neither study provides a universal time frame for regulating emotions |\n| A one-on-one reprimand solves the problem | Belittling and insults can also occur in private |\n| Respect immediately restores lost performance | The reported decline percentages do not indicate the speed or rate of recovery |\n\nIn the 2009 study, the effects varied depending on whether the witness was competing with the target. Witnesses who competed with the target experienced relatively smaller performance declines. Reactions to the same incident can vary with relationships and circumstances.\n\n## How leaders can reduce emotional reprimands\n\nWhen emotions intensify, start by adjusting the pace and location of the conversation. This is a way to choose how to act rather than eliminate anger itself. The steps below are practical suggestions that apply the implications of the research.\n\n1. Pause before responding. If an immediate response is not needed, set a time to continue the conversation.\n2. Organize the verified facts. Distinguish observed errors from assumptions about the other person's intentions.\n3. Give individual feedback in private. Share work information that others need to know separately.\n4. Explain specifically what behavior needs to change. Check that the other person understands the standards to apply.\n5. Check the corrections in a follow-up conversation. Also ask what support is needed for the work.\n\nFor example, you can explain a report error by pointing out the incorrect item. A judgment about an employee's diligence is not information needed to correct the error. If the conversation turns back to blame, consider pausing and resuming it later.\n\n## How to address the aftermath of a public reprimand, including its effects on witnesses\n\nIf you have made uncivil remarks publicly, include witnesses in efforts to address the aftermath. Explaining only to the person targeted may leave others without context for the incident. This is a practical suggestion drawn from the witness research.\n\n1. Stop using uncivil language. Do not justify your remarks by explaining the work problem.\n2. Acknowledge responsibility for your wording to the person targeted. Do not demand public reconciliation or forgiveness.\n3. Tell witnesses as well that your way of speaking was inappropriate. Do not repeat explanations of the person's mistake or personal information.\n4. Set out the necessary work corrections separately. Check whether any standards have not been communicated.\n5. Check whether the way you communicate has changed afterward. Do not assume that an apology alone has resolved the aftermath.\n\nThe purpose of addressing the aftermath publicly is not to reenact the incident. It is to make clear the standards of behavior the team should accept. Do not interpret the person's experience on their behalf or evaluate it publicly.\n\n## Frequently asked questions\n\n### Do quiet, sarcastic remarks count as incivility?\n\nRemarks that put someone down can be uncivil even without shouting. Volume alone does not determine the distinction. Both the content and the context of a violation of norms of respect need to be considered.\n\n### Should I reduce criticism to improve performance?\n\nThis does not mean eliminating necessary work-related criticism. Communicate the problem and the standards for correcting it clearly. Keep belittling language out of feedback.\n\n### Does uncivil behavior have an effect only when it comes from a manager?\n\nThe effects are not limited to behavior by managers or people in authority. The 2009 study also included a condition in which participants witnessed a colleague's incivility. Task performance declines were observed under that condition as well.\n\n### How many seconds should I hold back to avoid emotional remarks?\n\nThe studies reviewed here do not specify a set amount of time. Delaying a response is a way to give yourself room to choose how to respond. There is no guarantee that emotions will subside after a particular amount of time.\n\n### If the team goes quiet, does that mean the reprimand is working?\n\nSilence alone cannot establish whether people understand the work or whether performance has improved. Check separately that they understand what behavior needs to change. Assess the effectiveness of the feedback through subsequent work results.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility can disrupt not only the work of the person being criticized but also that of witnesses. In experiments, participants who witnessed incivility also performed worse on tasks. Leaders need to separate the content of feedback from expressions of emotion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe percentages of performance decline are based on an experiment summary in a Georgetown University commentary published on November 27, 2018.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#what-is-workplace-incivility\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"what-is-workplace-incivility\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhat is workplace incivility?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility refers to words or actions that violate norms of respect for others. This includes belittling or dismissive remarks. Remarks that put someone down can be uncivil even without shouting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePointing out a work error is not itself uncivil. The distinction lies in what the criticism targets and how it is expressed. Explaining what went wrong is different from putting someone down.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article addresses the effects on work performance. It does not cover legal judgments about individual incidents. The research concept of incivility alone cannot determine whether a law has been broken.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-much-did-performance-decline-in-the-experiments\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-much-did-performance-decline-in-the-experiments\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow much did performance decline in the experiments?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Georgetown University commentary describes performance declines under conditions involving both direct experience and witnessing incivility. The researchers are Christine Porath and Amir Erez. The following figures are differences between experimental conditions summarized in that commentary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eCondition of exposure to incivility\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eWord-building task performance\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eNumber of creative ideas\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Condition of exposure to incivility\"\u003eParticipants treated dismissively by the experimenter\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Word-building task performance\"\u003e33% lower than in the comparison condition\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Number of creative ideas\"\u003e39% lower than in the comparison condition\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Condition of exposure to incivility\"\u003eParticipants who witnessed an uncivil incident\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Word-building task performance\"\u003e22% lower than in the comparison condition\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Number of creative ideas\"\u003e28% lower than in the comparison condition\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe word-building task involves rearranging given letters to form words. The number of creative ideas is a separate task measure. The two measures cannot be combined into a single percentage of productivity decline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe figures in the table can be found in \u003ca href=\"https://msb.georgetown.edu/news-story/civil-actions/\"\u003eGeorgetown University's Civil Actions\u003c/a\u003e. This commentary was published on November 27, 2018. The publication date should not be taken as the date the experiments were conducted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main paper on direct experience was published in 2007. The follow-up paper on witnesses' performance was published in 2009. These figures are not statistics from a survey of today's workplaces as a whole.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#why-even-people-who-were-not-reprimanded-may-struggle-to-concentrate\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"why-even-people-who-were-not-reprimanded-may-struggle-to-concentrate\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhy even people who were not reprimanded may struggle to concentrate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn uncivil incident can draw witnesses' attention away from work and toward the incident. The researchers focused on interference with cognitive processes and negative emotions. However, the explanatory pathways identified in the two studies need to be distinguished.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 2007 study provided evidence that interference with cognitive processes explained the performance decline. Cognitive processes are activities involved in remembering and processing information. Working memory temporarily holds information needed for an immediate task.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe explanation is that thoughts about how to interpret the situation can compete with work. This does not establish that all mental energy has been exhausted. Details of the study can be found in the \u003ca href=\"https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919\"\u003e2007 paper\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 2009 witness study identified a mediating role for negative emotions. This means that changes in emotion were a pathway explaining the performance decline. Explaining witnesses' reactions solely in terms of cognitive depletion misses this distinction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe witness study also found a decrease in behavior that helped others. This shows that the effects were not limited to individual task performance. Details can be found in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597809000041\"\u003e2009 paper\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#comparing-work-feedback-and-public-reprimands\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"comparing-work-feedback-and-public-reprimands\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eComparing work feedback and public reprimands\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen giving work feedback, communicate the verified problem and the standards for correcting it. Even a calm tone does not resolve the problem if the words belittle someone's abilities. Changing the location alone does not change the content of what is said.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe table below presents practical distinctions based on the research findings. It is not an experimental comparison of the effectiveness of each response. In actual conversations, consider the urgency of the work as well.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eCriterion\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eFeedback aimed at solving a problem\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eReprimands likely to become uncivil\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criterion\"\u003eTarget of criticism\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Feedback aimed at solving a problem\"\u003eVerified behavior or results\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Reprimands likely to become uncivil\"\u003eThe person's overall ability or character\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criterion\"\u003eContent conveyed\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Feedback aimed at solving a problem\"\u003eWhat is wrong and the standards for correcting it\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Reprimands likely to become uncivil\"\u003eBlame and expressions of emotion\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criterion\"\u003eWay of communicating\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Feedback aimed at solving a problem\"\u003eChecking facts and offering a chance to explain\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Reprimands likely to become uncivil\"\u003eInterrupting or mocking\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criterion\"\u003eAudience\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Feedback aimed at solving a problem\"\u003ePeople who need the information for work\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Reprimands likely to become uncivil\"\u003eEmbarrassing someone in front of uninvolved people\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criterion\"\u003eFollow-up\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Feedback aimed at solving a problem\"\u003eChecking corrections and support needed\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Reprimands likely to become uncivil\"\u003eTreating the matter as closed once the reprimand is over\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen discussing individual responsibility, consider a private conversation first. Work standards that the whole team needs to know can be shared separately. There is no need to publicly reenact a particular person's mistake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#common-mistakes-and-interpreting-research-figures\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"common-mistakes-and-interpreting-research-figures\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eCommon mistakes and interpreting research figures\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDirectly converting the experimental decline percentages into a company's financial losses goes beyond what the findings support. The research measured task performance under specified conditions. It did not predict that actual sales or annual productivity would change by the same percentages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eCommon interpretation\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eWhat to check\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eOne angry outburst reduces team productivity by 22%\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eThe 22% refers to a task performance difference under a witness condition in a specific experiment\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eEvery witness experiences the same percentage decline in performance\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eGroup-level results cannot be applied as individual predictions\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eAll lower scores are due to cognitive depletion\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eDistinguish the explanatory pathways in the direct-experience study and the witness study\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eHolding back for a few seconds resolves anger\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eNeither study provides a universal time frame for regulating emotions\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eA one-on-one reprimand solves the problem\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eBelittling and insults can also occur in private\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Common interpretation\"\u003eRespect immediately restores lost performance\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"What to check\"\u003eThe reported decline percentages do not indicate the speed or rate of recovery\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the 2009 study, the effects varied depending on whether the witness was competing with the target. Witnesses who competed with the target experienced relatively smaller performance declines. Reactions to the same incident can vary with relationships and circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-leaders-can-reduce-emotional-reprimands\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-leaders-can-reduce-emotional-reprimands\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow leaders can reduce emotional reprimands\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen emotions intensify, start by adjusting the pace and location of the conversation. This is a way to choose how to act rather than eliminate anger itself. The steps below are practical suggestions that apply the implications of the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePause before responding. If an immediate response is not needed, set a time to continue the conversation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrganize the verified facts. Distinguish observed errors from assumptions about the other person's intentions.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGive individual feedback in private. Share work information that others need to know separately.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExplain specifically what behavior needs to change. Check that the other person understands the standards to apply.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck the corrections in a follow-up conversation. Also ask what support is needed for the work.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor example, you can explain a report error by pointing out the incorrect item. A judgment about an employee's diligence is not information needed to correct the error. If the conversation turns back to blame, consider pausing and resuming it later.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-to-address-the-aftermath-of-a-public-reprimand-including-its-effects-on-witnesses\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-to-address-the-aftermath-of-a-public-reprimand-including-its-effects-on-witnesses\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow to address the aftermath of a public reprimand, including its effects on witnesses\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf you have made uncivil remarks publicly, include witnesses in efforts to address the aftermath. Explaining only to the person targeted may leave others without context for the incident. This is a practical suggestion drawn from the witness research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStop using uncivil language. Do not justify your remarks by explaining the work problem.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcknowledge responsibility for your wording to the person targeted. Do not demand public reconciliation or forgiveness.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTell witnesses as well that your way of speaking was inappropriate. Do not repeat explanations of the person's mistake or personal information.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSet out the necessary work corrections separately. Check whether any standards have not been communicated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheck whether the way you communicate has changed afterward. Do not assume that an apology alone has resolved the aftermath.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of addressing the aftermath publicly is not to reenact the incident. It is to make clear the standards of behavior the team should accept. Do not interpret the person's experience on their behalf or evaluate it publicly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#frequently-asked-questions\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"frequently-asked-questions\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eFrequently asked questions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#do-quiet-sarcastic-remarks-count-as-incivility\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"do-quiet-sarcastic-remarks-count-as-incivility\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDo quiet, sarcastic remarks count as incivility?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRemarks that put someone down can be uncivil even without shouting. Volume alone does not determine the distinction. Both the content and the context of a violation of norms of respect need to be considered.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#should-i-reduce-criticism-to-improve-performance\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"should-i-reduce-criticism-to-improve-performance\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eShould I reduce criticism to improve performance?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis does not mean eliminating necessary work-related criticism. Communicate the problem and the standards for correcting it clearly. Keep belittling language out of feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#does-uncivil-behavior-have-an-effect-only-when-it-comes-from-a-manager\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"does-uncivil-behavior-have-an-effect-only-when-it-comes-from-a-manager\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDoes uncivil behavior have an effect only when it comes from a manager?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe effects are not limited to behavior by managers or people in authority. The 2009 study also included a condition in which participants witnessed a colleague's incivility. Task performance declines were observed under that condition as well.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-many-seconds-should-i-hold-back-to-avoid-emotional-remarks\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-many-seconds-should-i-hold-back-to-avoid-emotional-remarks\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow many seconds should I hold back to avoid emotional remarks?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe studies reviewed here do not specify a set amount of time. Delaying a response is a way to give yourself room to choose how to respond. There is no guarantee that emotions will subside after a particular amount of time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#if-the-team-goes-quiet-does-that-mean-the-reprimand-is-working\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"if-the-team-goes-quiet-does-that-mean-the-reprimand-is-working\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eIf the team goes quiet, does that mean the reprimand is working?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSilence alone cannot establish whether people understand the work or whether performance has improved. Check separately that they understand what behavior needs to change. Assess the effectiveness of the feedback through subsequent work results.\u003c/p\u003e\n","tags":["Leadership","Organizational culture","Productivity","Self Management"],"faqs":[{"question":"Does workplace incivility affect only those who experience it directly?","answer":"It can also affect witnesses. In a 2009 experimental study, participants who witnessed incivility performed worse on tasks."},{"question":"What do 33%, 39%, 22%, and 28% mean?","answer":"These are differences between experimental conditions described in a 2018 commentary from Georgetown University. Participants who were directly treated disrespectfully performed 33% worse on a word task. They generated 39% fewer creative ideas. In the witness condition, the corresponding figures were 22% and 28% lower."},{"question":"Can the experimental figures be used as a company's productivity loss rates?","answer":"They cannot be used as-is. These are results from specific experimental tasks, so they do not provide a basis for calculating percentage declines in company revenue or annual productivity."},{"question":"Is the decline in witnesses' performance entirely due to cognitive depletion?","answer":"It cannot be attributed to a single cause. A 2007 study provided evidence of interference with cognitive processes. The 2009 study of witnesses found that negative emotions played a mediating role."},{"question":"Does reprimanding someone one-on-one eliminate the problem?","answer":"The setting alone does not solve the problem. You can demean someone even in a private conversation. Focus on verified behavior and criteria for correcting it."},{"question":"How many seconds is the critical window for calming anger?","answer":"The studies reviewed here do not specify a universally applicable time frame. You can consider ways to delay an immediate response. There is no guarantee that emotions will subside after a specific amount of time."},{"question":"How do you make amends after saying something rude in public?","answer":"Acknowledge to the person involved that you are responsible for what you said. Let witnesses know as well that the way you expressed yourself was inappropriate. Do not publicly disclose the person's mistakes or personal information again."},{"question":"Does performance recover immediately if you show respect?","answer":"The percentage declines in performance presented here do not tell you how quickly performance will recover or by what percentage. Even after apologizing, check whether your way of expressing yourself and your work-related conversations have changed."}],"sources":[{"url":"https://msb.georgetown.edu/news-story/civil-actions/","title":"Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, Civil Actions, November 27, 2018","type":"data_point"},{"url":"https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919","title":"Porath·Erez, Does Rudeness Really Matter? The Effects of Rudeness on Task Performance and Helpfulness, Academy of Management Journal, 2007","type":"source"},{"url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597809000041","title":"Porath·Erez, Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks, 2009","type":"source"},{"url":"https://people.uncw.edu/hakanr/documents/effectsofrudnessononlookers.pdf","title":"Original text of the 2009 onlooker study, publicly available PDF from the University of North Carolina Wilmington","type":"source"}],"images":[{"id":2154,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MzMwOTAsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--d0998c7aad20b45250f8e57268eca1ece2040496/ai-311ebe1c.webp","is_representative":true,"generation_method":"ai_photo","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","width":1536,"height":1024,"translations":{"ko":{"alt":"작업장에서 조립을 멈춘 기술자가 여성 동료에게 손을 들어 보이는 남성을 돌아보고 있다.","caption":"직장 내 무례함은 이를 목격한 동료의 집중과 과제 수행에도 영향을 줄 수 있습니다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"A technician pauses assembly and looks toward a man holding up his hand to a woman in the workshop.","caption":"Workplace rudeness can disrupt witnesses’ concentration and task performance too.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"作業場で組み立ての手を止めた技術者が、女性に手をかざす男性の方を振り向いている。","caption":"職場での無礼な言動は、目撃した同僚の集中や課題の遂行にも影響を及ぼすことがあります。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Un técnico deja de ensamblar y mira a un hombre que levanta la mano ante una mujer en el taller.","caption":"La descortesía laboral también puede afectar la concentración y el desempeño de quienes la presencian.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Seorang teknisi berhenti merakit dan menoleh ke pria yang mengangkat tangan di hadapan seorang perempuan di bengkel.","caption":"Perilaku tidak sopan di tempat kerja juga dapat mengganggu konsentrasi dan kinerja tugas orang yang menyaksikannya.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Um técnico interrompe a montagem e olha para um homem que ergue a mão diante de uma mulher na oficina.","caption":"A grosseria no trabalho também pode afetar a concentração e o desempenho de quem a presencia.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"工作坊內，一名技術人員停下組裝工作，轉頭看向一名對著女性抬手的男子。","caption":"職場上的無禮言行也可能影響目睹者的專注力與任務表現。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Ein Techniker unterbricht die Montage und blickt zu einem Mann, der gegenüber einer Frau die Hand hebt.","caption":"Unhöflichkeit am Arbeitsplatz kann auch die Konzentration und Aufgabenleistung von Zeugen beeinträchtigen.","description":null}}},{"id":2155,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MzMwOTYsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--3fa7c6efca1e9c46d07dc0afd1b6ff96ee70e5ec/ai-276ddef0.webp","is_representative":false,"generation_method":"ai_semi","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","width":1536,"height":1024,"translations":{"ko":{"alt":"식당 주방에서 보라색 앞치마를 입은 여성이 가슴에 손을 얹고 동료 세 명에게 말하고 있다.","caption":"공개적으로 무례한 말을 했다면 당사자뿐 아니라 목격자도 고려해 수습해야 합니다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"A woman in a purple apron holds a hand to her chest while speaking to three coworkers in a restaurant kitchen.","caption":"Addressing public disrespect requires considering both the person targeted and those who witnessed it.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"飲食店の厨房で、紫のエプロンを着けた女性が胸に手を当て、同僚３人に話しかけている。","caption":"人前で無礼な発言をした場合は、当事者だけでなく目撃者にも配慮して事後対応を行う必要があります。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Una mujer con delantal morado se lleva la mano al pecho y habla con tres colegas en la cocina de un restaurante.","caption":"Tras una falta de respeto en público, hay que considerar tanto a la persona afectada como a quienes la presenciaron.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Perempuan bercelemek ungu meletakkan tangan di dada sambil berbicara kepada tiga rekan di dapur restoran.","caption":"Saat memperbaiki situasi setelah berkata tidak sopan di depan umum, pertimbangkan pihak yang disakiti maupun para saksi.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Uma mulher de avental roxo põe a mão no peito enquanto fala com três colegas na cozinha de um restaurante.","caption":"Ao reparar uma falta de respeito em público, é preciso considerar tanto a pessoa afetada quanto quem presenciou o ocorrido.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"餐廳廚房裡，一名穿著紫色圍裙的女子將手放在胸前，向三名同事說話。","caption":"公開說出無禮的話後，善後時應同時顧及當事人與目擊者。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Eine Frau mit lila Schürze legt die Hand auf die Brust und spricht in einer Restaurantküche mit drei Teammitgliedern.","caption":"Nach respektlosen Äußerungen vor anderen muss die Aufarbeitung sowohl Betroffene als auch Zeugen berücksichtigen.","description":null}}}],"published_at":"2026-10-26T05:02:10+09:00","updated_at":"2026-10-26T05:02:10+09:00","license":"cc_by","translation_status":"reviewed","available_locales":["ko","en","ja","es"],"data_locales":["ko","en","ja","es","id","pt","zh-hant","de"],"url":"https://injoys.com/en/articles/workplace-incivility-team-performance-leadership"}