Abstract
Workplace incivility (rudeness at work) is one of many mistreatment constructs that continues to gain the attention of academics, the popular press, and practitioners alike. However, what behaviors constitute incivility vs. other forms of mistreatment is open to interpretation from one person to the next, and we know little about how characteristics of different individual perpetrators shape responses to perceived acts of incivility. To resolve some of these questions surrounding the construct of workplace incivility, four empirical studies were undertaken. In Study 1, to examine what behaviors comprise workplace incivility, the most prevalent scale of incivility was assessed for content adequacy against other prominent workplace mistreatment constructs. In Study 2, a critical incident technique was employed to better understand the types of behaviors that are considered uncivil at work and who commits them. This was followed by Study 3, a quantitative analysis of who is likely to be perceived as a perpetrator of incivility behaviors (versus other acts of mistreatment), and Study 4 which used experimental vignettes to assess if the cultural background of the perpetrator plays a role in the perceptions of and reactions to incivility behaviors. Combined, the findings of the four studies suggest while incivility is indeed a negative influence in workplaces, more research is needed to accurately measure it and to understand its underlying causes.