Thinking About Workplace Engagement

Abstract

The Problem.

This study investigated the frequency with which employees (N = 272) in a computer sciences company in the United States were the target of supervisor and coworker incivility as well as the link between this incivility and worker engagement. Participants completed a paper-and-pencil survey consisting of the Workplace Engagement Scale (Shuck) and modified versions of the Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout).

The Solution.

Results indicated that 78% of the participants had experienced supervisor incivility and 81% had experienced coworker incivility during the past year. MANOVA analysis revealed that females had experienced more coworker incivility and males had experienced more supervisor incivility. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that after controlling for gender and age, both incivility variables were negative predictors of safety and availability engagement. Specifically, coworker incivility more powerfully predicted safety engagement whereas supervisor incivility was more closely linked with availability engagement. Recommendations for HRD research and practice are discussed.

The Stakeholders.

Stakeholders include workplace supervisors/managers, HRD professionals, HR managers, organizational leaders, and employees.

Keywords

incivility uncivil behavior engagement coworker supervisor

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.

Bandow

Hunter

(2008). Developing policies about uncivil workplace behavior. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 103-106.

Baron

R. A.

Neuman

J. H.

(1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential clauses. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

Williams

J. H.

Langhout

R. D.

(2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80.

Dillman

D. A.

(2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Hutton

Gates

(2008). Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct care staff. AAOHN Journal, 56, 168-175.

Johnson

(2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30, 3-13.

Kahn

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Lim

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.

10.

Lim

V. K. G.

Teo

T. S. H.

(2009). Mind your e-manners: Impact of incivility on employee’s work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46, 419-425.

11.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 77, 11-37.

12.

Osatuke

Moore

S. C.

Ward

Dyrenforth

S. R.

Belton

(2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the workplace (CREW): Nationwide organization development intervention at Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 384-410.

13.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. M.

Porath

C. L.

(2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123-137.

14.

Pearson

C. M.

Porath

C. L.

(2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 7-12.

15.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

(2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

16.

Porath

C. L.

Pearson

C. M.

(2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 64-71.

17.

Reio

T. G.

Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias in theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 405-411.

18.

Reio

T. G.

Jr. Ghosh

(2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 237-264.

19.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.

20.

Shuck

(2010). Employee engagement: An examination of antecedent and outcome variables (FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Paper 235). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/235

21.

Shuck

Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110.

22.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariable statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

23.

Yeung

Griffin

(2008). Workplace incivility: Does it matter in Asia? People & Strategy, 31, 14-19.