Workplace Incivility: Team Performance and How to Respond
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.
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.
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.
The percentages of performance decline are based on an experiment summary in a Georgetown University commentary published on November 27, 2018.
What is workplace incivility?
Workplace 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.
Pointing 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.
This 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.
How much did performance decline in the experiments?
The 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.
Condition of exposure to incivility | Word-building task performance | Number of creative ideas
Participants treated dismissively by the experimenter | 33% lower than in the comparison condition | 39% lower than in the comparison condition
Participants who witnessed an uncivil incident | 22% lower than in the comparison condition | 28% lower than in the comparison condition
The 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.
The figures in the table can be found in Georgetown University's Civil Actions. This commentary was published on November 27, 2018. The publication date should not be taken as the date the experiments were conducted.
The 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.
Why even people who were not reprimanded may struggle to concentrate
An 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.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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.
The 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.
Comparing work feedback and public reprimands
When 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.
The 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.
Criterion | Feedback aimed at solving a problem | Reprimands likely to become uncivil
Target of criticism | Verified behavior or results | The person's overall ability or character
Content conveyed | What is wrong and the standards for correcting it | Blame and expressions of emotion
Way of communicating | Checking facts and offering a chance to explain | Interrupting or mocking
Audience | People who need the information for work | Embarrassing someone in front of uninvolved people
Follow-up | Checking corrections and support needed | Treating the matter as closed once the reprimand is over
When 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.
Common mistakes and interpreting research figures
Directly 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.
Common interpretation | What to check
One angry outburst reduces team productivity by 22% | The 22% refers to a task performance difference under a witness condition in a specific experiment
Every witness experiences the same percentage decline in performance | Group-level results cannot be applied as individual predictions
All lower scores are due to cognitive depletion | Distinguish the explanatory pathways in the direct-experience study and the witness study
Holding back for a few seconds resolves anger | Neither study provides a universal time frame for regulating emotions
A one-on-one reprimand solves the problem | Belittling and insults can also occur in private
Respect immediately restores lost performance | The reported decline percentages do not indicate the speed or rate of recovery
In 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.
How leaders can reduce emotional reprimands
When 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.
· Pause before responding. If an immediate response is not needed, set a time to continue the conversation.
· Organize the verified facts. Distinguish observed errors from assumptions about the other person's intentions.
· Give individual feedback in private. Share work information that others need to know separately.
· Explain specifically what behavior needs to change. Check that the other person understands the standards to apply.
· Check the corrections in a follow-up conversation. Also ask what support is needed for the work.
For 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.
How to address the aftermath of a public reprimand, including its effects on witnesses
If 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.
· Stop using uncivil language. Do not justify your remarks by explaining the work problem.
· Acknowledge responsibility for your wording to the person targeted. Do not demand public reconciliation or forgiveness.
· Tell witnesses as well that your way of speaking was inappropriate. Do not repeat explanations of the person's mistake or personal information.
· Set out the necessary work corrections separately. Check whether any standards have not been communicated.
· Check whether the way you communicate has changed afterward. Do not assume that an apology alone has resolved the aftermath.
The 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.
Frequently asked questions
Do quiet, sarcastic remarks count as incivility?
Remarks 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.
Should I reduce criticism to improve performance?
This does not mean eliminating necessary work-related criticism. Communicate the problem and the standards for correcting it clearly. Keep belittling language out of feedback.
Does uncivil behavior have an effect only when it comes from a manager?
The 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.
How many seconds should I hold back to avoid emotional remarks?
The 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.
If the team goes quiet, does that mean the reprimand is working?
Silence 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.
Injoys
