Workplace Incivility vs. Organizational Affective Commitment - Essay Example

? Workplace Incivility vs. Organizational Affective Commitment Neimat Abu Samra Prof. W. J. Ninehan Organization Psychology (MGMT 714) 03/17 ABSTRACT This paper briefly describes how workplace incivility and affective commitment affect the workplace and its implications for HR managers. Although there is no guarantee that HR can reduce the negative effects of workplace incivility that lead to low employee morale, job satisfaction, stress, health problems, high absenteeism and high turnover at the workplace, certain HR practices such as hiring, orientation and mentoring newly hired employees are developed to control workplace incivility. A fundamental HR practice that enhances affective commitment, on the other hand, would be developing and creating a work environment that discourages workforce incivility and allows workers to be treated with respect and dignity. Workforce incivility refers to a less intense nonstandard behavior pertaining to the breach of workplace norms where the intention of inflicting harm on the other party is unknown (L.M. and C.M. 1999). Incivility at the workplace can manifest itself in forms as subtle as displaying reluctance to work, feeling de energized, demoralized and underappreciated. In short, workforce incivility implies an atmosphere whereby the workforce is faced with rudeness and socially unacceptable behavior at the workplace. More often than not, the cause of workforce incivility is the behavior of co-workers rather than supervisors (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). Several researches have been conducted regarding the relation of workforce incivility to self-esteem and the self-respect of the workforce. Several workplace practices have contributed to workforce incivility; de-layering, downsizing, Business Process Reengineering, cutting budgets, enhancing productivity to name a few (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). According to one research conducted, over 71% of respondents had gone through some acts of workforce incivility in a five year time period (Cortina, et al. 2001). The speed with which advanced communications technology evolves, including advanced cell phones such as Blackberry, has also enhanced the scope of workforce incivility. The instances of mistreatment are no longer limited to the workplace; they have spread to the cyberspace as well. A more inclusive approach towards workforce incivility defines it as the set of explicit (verbal) and implicit (non-verbal) actions that lead to individuals feeling demoralized, de-energized, oppressed, exploited or humiliated in the workplace (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). Furthermore, it has been proven that workforce incivility translates to low employee morale, job satisfaction, stress, health problems, high absenteeism and high turnover at the workplace. Evidence also suggests that if this mistreatment is not rectified, it eventually results in high costs of hiring and training, poor work environment, lower productivity, costs of claims and law suits. According to one author, Sutton’s methodology, the total cost of workforce incivility for Silicon Valley owing to the incivility of one key worker amounts to US$160,000 per year (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). In this study he fully considered the cost of incivility in terms of the victims, management, law as well as human resources. According to research conducted by the U.K Department of Health, the cost of stress induced by workforce incivility amounts to ? 1.3 billion annually (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). Throughout the world, the engagement of employees has been considered as an essential factor in identification of best employers as well as talent. Employee engagement is a holistic construct which is defined in terms of emotional and cognitive commitment. Commitment here is defined as the urge to “stay” (continue to work in the company), “strive” (put in extra endeavors to enhance the performance of the company beyond the tasks mentioned in the job description) and “say” (spread positive word of mouth regarding the organization) (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). Affective commitment, in particular, is defined as the worker’s emotional connection and association with the organization (Meyer and Allen 1991). Often the terms Emotional and Affective commitment are used interchangeably. The positive outcomes of affective commitment manifest in the form of high job satisfaction, lower turnover and absenteeism to name a few (Meyer and Allen 1991). Therefore, employee engagement is almost fully defined in terms of employee commitment. Employee engagement, in turn, has an effect on various activities such as productivity, customer satisfaction, retention and the return to shareholders. According to a study regarding workforce incivility in Asian countries, a strong relationship was discovered between incivility at workplace and employee engagement (employee commitment) in the workplace (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). A number of factors affect employee engagement/commitment, such as performance appraisal, rewards system, opportunities for career growth as well as interpersonal relationships. Incivility has a strong relation with employee commitment. If workers are treated harshly or rudely or there’s negative politics, chances are that the worker commitment will be low. Being treated with dignity and respect is the fundamental right of each worker and also one of the key factors to enhance employee commitment. Therefore, one of the fundamental practices of HR in this case would be developing and creating a work environment that discourages workforce incivility and allows workers to be treated with respect and dignity (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). This involves a holistic set of practices, as described by Robert Sutton. One of the key practices is to explicitly state the company’s procedures and rules such that they are clearly known and understood by all employees in the organization (Daniel 2009). The problem with this is that it does not guarantee low incivility at workplace since the rules have to be translated into behavior. Employees learn not just through manuals but also through the actions of their supervisors and co-workers. This lends to the second practice whereby leadership free from incivility is demonstrated at all levels and behaviors where workers display incivility are discouraged and punished (Daniel 2009). However, this practice also does not guarantee that workers will behave as expected. The problem is then reduced to the initial phase of hiring and recruitment. This is the stage where HR has a significant role to play. Civility of behavior must be kept as a major criterion for selection of workers. Various psychological tests as well as simulations help the interviewers tap the psyche of candidates, thus bringing out any potential for incivility in future. Newly hired employees must also be given an orientation where they are made aware of the company’s culture and expectations. Often workplace incivility occurs because employees are not aware of the disastrous consequences of the same. This step is important so that workers do not cross the limits that they never knew existed (Daniel 2009). Apart from the orientation sessions, mentoring is often useful and occurs when the new hire is tied with a senior one to train him and guide him about the organization. The mentor is the worker’s gateway to the company- someone who can guide him about the realities of the organization (Daniel 2009). Incivility is often always the result of some frustration or grievance on the part of workers. Unsatisfactory grievance process can also result in workers becoming frustrated, and thus, mistreating their equals. A fair and systematic grievance process allows workers to take out their frustrations in a civilized manner rather than engaging in uncivil behaviors. The fair grievance initiative involves a holistic set of actions. Firstly, an open door policy is suggestive of the fact that the management is encouraging workers to voice their opinions (Daniel 2009). However, this is often thought about with suspicion by workers who feel that voicing their grievances will have a negative impact on their appraisals etc. The HR must ensure that employees are ascertained that there shall be no negative consequences. If this step fails, then the next course of action must be for the senior management to review the employees’ case (Daniel 2009). Finally, if all channels fail the last resort is arbitration (Daniel 2009). Arbitration is an effective step in conflict resolution since the results are binding and final for both parties. However, this is a costly process and most organizations prefer not to get involved in this. The essence of these practices lies in maintaining an organizational culture that allows for a respectful and dignified environment for workers. However, this is not an easy task and HR is constantly faced with challenges. At the simplest level, it is common to see workers lose their temper at a work meeting where one person tries to impose his/her views on another. Senior managers are placed in an odd position under such circumstances as they are forced to side with one person, which creates a lobby. Managers need to be reminded that they ought to maintain a neutral position under such cases and not get carried away by the situation. Experts have come up with ways to deal with these challenges. It has been observed that politics is often the root cause of workplace incivility and that political arguments are the ones that are most heated and defensive. To counter this situation, it has been suggested that the use of company artifacts and tools for political campaigns be strictly and clearly defined along with the scope of political activities within the workplace (Yeung and Gnffin 2008). Since employees are concerned with job security today more than anything else, chances are high that they agree to this in order to reduce the chances of losing a job. Another important practice on the part of HR is effective monitoring of workers’ activities and counseling. Monitoring, at the most basic level requires keeping track of employees’ emails, their phone calls and their chatter. It is often useful to give a verbal and honest reminder to employees regarding any offensive or uncivil behavior on their part before officially giving them a warning. However, the major issue with this practice is that it is seen as an invasion to privacy from the workers’ standpoint. Monitoring workers’ activities, their chats and their emails has the effect of lowering worker morale since employees feel they are not trusted. Trust is in fact one of the key factors underlying workers’ affective commitment. If workers feel that they are not trusted, chances are that their emotional attachment with the organization will be low, which in turn leads to uncivil behaviors. Privacy is also one of the strongest issues taken up by law and, if taken up by the employee in an offensive sense, it can lead to litigations and law suits for the company. To conclude, there are several routes to approaching the problem of workplace incivility which can translate to verbal abuse if not taken seriously. Good organizations attempt to address this problem even though a definite solution may not be reached due to various complexities as mentioned above. Works Cited Cortina, L. M., V. J. Magley, J. H. Williams, and R. D. Langhout. "Incivility in the Workplace: Incidence and Impact." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2001: 64-80. Daniel, Teresa A. Stop Bullying at Work : Strategies and Tools for HR and Legal Professionals. Virginia: Society for Human Resource Managament, 2009. L.M., Andersson, and Pearson C.M. "Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace." Academy of Management Review, 1999: 452-471. Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen. "A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment." Human Resource Management Review, 1991: 61-89. Yeung, Arthur, and Barbara Gnffin. "Workplace Incivility: Does it Matter in Asia?" People and Strategy, 2008: 14-19. Read More