When incivility impacts employee engagement |
| |
 |
|
Incivility in the workplace
ultimately is costing
employers in Asia, as
ongoing research shows that
engaged employees deliver
better business results.
Independent research by Professor
Arthur Yeung and Dr. Barbara Griffin |
|
 |
|
|
| |
Using Hewitt's Best Employers in
Asia 2007 data, we explored the
issue of incivility in the workplace.
The findings tell us a lot about
the dynamics of Asian workplaces
and reveal some surprising trends in employee
behaviour. What's more, the research showed
that incivility in the workplace has a significant
impact on employee engagement.
The research was conducted independently
by Professor Arthur Yeung of the China Europe
International Business School in China and Dr,
Barbara Griffin of the University of Western
Sydney in Australia.
The research highlighted four key facts
about incivility in the workplace:
| 1. |
That incivility exists widely in a number of
areas and to different extents across the
Asian workplaces |
| |
|
| 2. |
That incivility has a major impact on
employee engagement, especially when
the frequency reaches a certain threshold
(i.e., once a month) |
| |
|
| 3. |
That co-workers are more frequently
perceived to be the source of incivility
rather than managers and senior leaders,
and finally, |
| |
|
| 4. |
Employees who are male, in management,
and have worked beyond six months tend to
report higher levels of incivility than other
employees. |
| |
|
|
|
The extent of workplace incivility in Asia
Broadly defined, incivility refers to verbal
and non-verbal behaviors that make people
feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or
belittled in the workplace; terms like bullying,
interpersonal aggression or social undermining
are frequently used to describe the behaviors of
incivility in the workplace.
The four types of uncivil behavior included:
| • |
Making negative comments about you to
others; |
| |
|
| • |
Speaking to you in a rude or inappropriate
manner; |
| |
|
| • |
Questioning your judgment in your area of
responsibility; and |
| |
|
| • |
Excluding you from situations where you felt
you should be included. |
| |
|
Based on Hewitt's Best Employers in Asia 2007
data, 77 percent of respondents reported that
they have experienced at least one of these
four uncivil behaviors from at least one of the
sources (i.e., co-workers, managers, senior
leaders) in the last year.
Such a finding reveals that incivility is quite
prevalent in Asia.
Interestingly enough, the level of incivility
experienced by employees varies significantly
by country or region. For example, while only
five percent of respondents in China experience
a high level of incivility (once a week), a
much higher percentage of respondents in
India and Korea experienced similarly high
levels of incivility (17 percent and 15 percent
respectively). Additionally, 30 percent of
respondents in China report that they never
experienced any uncivil behavior compared to
only 13 percent in Korea.
Respondents in China reported the lowest
level of incivility in the sample.
We believe such variations in the incidence
of incivility may be partly explained by different
work styles or behavior manifested in different
cultures (e.g., a confrontational style vs. a
harmonious or face-saving one; task-oriented
vs. people-oriented; performance-driven vs.
relationship driven).
While work cultures in Mainland China
are undergoing rapid changes, many Chinese
still prefer harmony or face-facing over
confrontation in the workplace, and are people
and relationship-oriented rather than pure
performance or task-oriented. |
 |
|
Based on Hewitt's Best Employers
in Asia 2007 data, 77 percent of
respondents reported that they
have experienced at least one
type of uncivil behavior from
at least one of the sources (i.e.,
co-workers, managers, senior
leaders) in the last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| TABLE 1: Percent of engaged employees |
| INCIVILITY LEVEL |
CHINA |
HONG KONG |
INDIA |
JAPAN |
KOREA |
SINGAPORE |
TOTAL SAMPLE |
| None |
73% |
78% |
90% |
42% |
83% |
89% |
80% |
| Low |
51% |
62% |
78% |
39% |
64% |
75% |
65% |
| Moderate |
27% |
39% |
57% |
24% |
41% |
49% |
44% |
| High |
30% |
42% |
48% |
18% |
40% |
49% |
43% |
| Market
Average
Engagement
Score |
50% |
58% |
68% |
29% |
53% |
68% |
61% |
|
| |
In a society like China where networks and
guanxi (personal relationships) are important
to get things done, superiors and peers in
general try not to offend and humiliate others
in public as such behavior is not only socially
undesirable but can also sow seeds for personal
doom in case they need assistance, directly or
indirectly, from that person in the future.
Impact on employee engagement
While employee engagement to an organization
is affected by a wide range of factors including
rewards, development and career opportunities,
work, company practices, quality of life, and
people (Bennett & Bell, 2004), we believe
whether people are being treated with respect
and dignity will also affect their commitment
to remain with the company, speak positively
about it, and strive hard to contribute to its
success.
This is demonstrated in award-winning
companies such as Mary Kay and the Ritz
Carlton that have prioritized creating a work
environment where employees at all levels are
expected to follow the Golden Rule and treat
each other with respect and dignity (Yeung,
2006). The "no jerks" rule at SuccessFactors
has been equally successful (Sutton, 2007b).
In contrast, when uncivil behavior
is tolerated or is the accepted norm in
a workplace, it is natural that employee
commitment to the organization is reduced.
Table 1 reports how the degree of employee
engagement changes depending on the level of
incivility (i.e., none, low, moderate, and high)
experienced by employees.
The highest percentage of engaged
employees is always the group that never
experiences any of the four uncivil behaviors.
The percentage of engaged employees is a
little lower for the group of employees who
experience a low level of uncivil behavior
(i.e., once or twice a year).
First, it is important to note that incivility
does affect employee engagement as
demonstrated by the systematic changes
in percentage of employee engagement at
different levels of incivility.
Second, the impact of incivility on employee
engagement, interestingly enough, does not
follow a linear relationship in the Asian nations
examined.
Employee engagement will drop slightly in
an environment of no to a low level of uncivil
behavior, but employee engagement will
drop drastically if incivility is perceived at a
moderate or high level.
Stanford Professor Robert Sutton simply
labels those instigators of uncivil behavior as
"jerks".
Research has shown that uncivil behavior
not only leads to low job satisfaction,
psychological stress, absenteeism, poor health,escalation of retaliatory violence, and higher
employee turnover at an individual level, but also when tolerated or not
|
|
constructively
confronted, there is potential damage to
organizations through higher recruitment and
training costs, unhealthy and unproductive
work climate, poor customer service, potential
costs in litigation filed by victims or even
instigators based on wrongful-termination
claims (Sutton, 2007b; Cortina et al., 2001; Lim & Cortina,
2005; Pearson et al., 2000).
Robert Sutton (2007b) helps companies quantify the
total costs of incivility (what he called "Total Costs of Jerks")
by fully considering its impact on the victims, witnesses,
instigator, management, legal and human resource
management costs, and negative work climate.
When a Silicon Valley executive used Sutton's method to
assess the total costs generated by a star salesperson due to his
"jerk" behavior, it was estimated to be US$160,000 per year.
Sources of incivility
Whereas the level of incivility experienced by respondents
varies across the region (consistent with previous findings),
the sources of incivility demonstrate a very consistent pattern
in all countries and territories, with co-workers being the
highest source of incivility, followed by managers, and then
senior leaders.
There are several possible reasons why co-workers are the
major source of incivility.
First, in a regular workday, employees tend to interact
with more co-workers than they do managers or senior
leaders and, as a result, co-workers are more likely to be a
source of incivility than others.
Second, as co-workers or peers may be perceived as
competitors for promotions or resources, co-workers and
peers may be more inclined (consciously or subconsciously)
to belittle, isolate or be in conflict with their peers.
Third, while co-workers need to work with each other to get
the job done, they don't have the authority to command others
to support their work. As a result, it is potentially easier to be
rude either verbally or non-verbally when they are frustrated.
Although many studies have emphasized the importance
of direct managers in affecting the satisfaction and retention
of employees, it is interesting to note that co-workers, rather
than managers, are the major source of workplace incivility.
Nevertheless, the roles of managers can not be underestimated
as how they manage the team can influence the
extent of incivility tolerated among co-workers.
|
|
| |
 |
 |
| |
Targets of incivility
Finally, the research examined which groups of employees
experienced higher levels of incivility than others. Despite
examining a wide range of factors based on employee
demographics (e.g. age, education, job function), it was found
that three employee characteristics offer interesting insights
regarding workplace incivility.
One of the most interesting findings we noticed was that
frontline employees experience significantly less incivility
than managers and the data indicate a trend that the higher
the level of management, the higher the level of incivility.
New employees with less than six months of service
experienced significantly less incivility than "older"
employees from their co-workers, managers, and senior
leaders. After the "honeymoon" period expires, employees
experience similar levels of incivility as their longer serving
peers. See Hewitt comment above.
Instead of treating each other with respect, respondents
in management levels report that they experience more
uncivil behavior as they climb up the corporate ladder. Power
games, big egos, internal competition for scarce resources
and promotion opportunities may contribute to higher
incidences of incivility at more senior level positions.
While some studies hypothesize that females may be
more sensitive or perceptive to detect uncivil behavior than
males (Montgomery, Kane, and Vance, 2004), our findings
show that males in Asia reported more incidences of
incivility than females.
This may be partly due to socially defined sex stereotypes
in many Asian countries that result in female colleagues being
treated more politely and gently. Another possible reason is
that the finding may be related to management level rather
than just gender.
|
|
What can we do about workplace incivility?
If workplace incivility is a challenge that deserves
management attention, what can companies do about it?
While the current research has answered some basic
questions related to workplace incivility in Asia, it also raises
new questions that call for future research. Robert Sutton
(2007b) and Dignity at Work (2008) have provided detailed
suggestions and advice on how to reduce workplace incivility by:
| • |
Making explicit the company's expectations and policies
on uncivil behavior |
| |
|
| • |
Demonstrating leadership commitment through modeling
good behavior and confronting the "jerks" even if they are
superstars |
| |
|
| • |
Hiring, promoting, and firing people with civility as one of
the criterion |
| |
|
| • |
Providing training and specific guidelines to employees on
how to confront bullies and how to avoid being one, and |
| |
|
| • |
Offering channels for employees to report and deal with
uncivil behavior. |
| |
|
Of course, in all these endeavors, human resource
professionals, in close partnership with senior leaders, can
play major roles.
Through the joint efforts of the corporate and academic
worlds, we hope that workplace incivility can be reduced and
a more positive work environment - where most people spend
much of their time - can be cultivated.
|
|
|
|
| |
| For more information, contact Jo Reinhard at jo.reinhard@hewitt.com |
| |
| |
|
|
About the authors
Arthur Yeung is Associate Dean and Philips Chair Professor of
Human Resource Management at China Europe International
Business School. Before his recent return to academia, Dr.
Yeung served as Corporate Vice-President and Chief HR Officer
of Acer Group - one of the world's top five PC companies.
Reporting directly to the Chairman and CEO, he worked closely
with the top management team to radically transform Acer to
meet the challenges and opportunities of new business realities.
Dr. Yeung's research interests focus on building
organizational capability for strategic implementation,
leading and facilitating organizational transformation,
and strategic human resource management. He has
received research awards from two leading human resource
associations in the United States: the Yoder-Heneman
Personnel Research Award presented by the Society of
Human Resource Management (1989), and the Best Research
Paper of the Year by the Human Resource Planning Society
(1995). In 2002, he also received the Gold Book Award,
jointly presented by Ministry of Economic Affairs and the
Chinese Management Association in Taiwan. Dr. Yeung
served as associate editor of Human Resource Management
Journal from 1995 to 2006 and is currently Editor (Asia) for
Human Resource Planning Journal and Editorial Advisory
Board member of Harvard Business Review (China).
|
|
In addition to research and teaching, Dr. Yeung advises
CEOs of several leading companies in China and serves as an independent board member for two publicly listed companies
in Hong Kong and Singapore. He also chairs the Asia-Pacific
Regional Judging Panel for selecting "Hewitt Best Employers
in Asia" conducted by Hewitt in partnership with The Wall
Street Journal Asia.
Barbara Griffin is an organizational psychologist and senior
research fellow at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Her areas of research include adaptive performance at work,
selection, interpersonal mistreatment, and postretirement
work and adjustment. She was awarded a prestigious
Australian Research Council Discovery grant for her work on
incivility and interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace.
Dr Griffin has published articles in a number of international
journals and edited books, and has presented at national
and international conferences. Her work in establishing the
student selection process for Australia's newest School of
Medicine was recently recognized with a Vice Chancellor's
Excellence Award for Professional Service. Dr Griffin also
lectures in psychological assessment at Macquarie University
and is involved in a range of private consultancy projects and
industry policy development.
This article was summarized from Yeung, A., & Griffin, B. (2008).
Workplace incivility: does it matter in Asia? People and Strategy,
31(3), Human Resource Planning Society.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
| |
Hewitt Quarterly Asia Pacific
is made possible through the combined skills and experience of Hewitt consultants from across the Asia-Pacific region.
For further information please contact:
Hewitt Associates
2601-05 Shell Tower
Times Square
Causeway Bay
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2877-8600
Fax: (852) 2877-2701
editor-hqap@hewitt.com |
|
|
|
|
