Workplace incivility is a growing challenge for all types of organizations (Porath & Pearson, 2010). In recognition of this mounting problem, researchers have investigated its prevalence in a broad range of organizational contexts, yet surprisingly little in K-12 schools. The lack of scholarly inquiry in this area is troubling considering the almost overwhelming difficulties facing the teaching profession (Fox & Stallworth, 2010). For example, in our current lean economic times, schools are receiving less financial support, yet calls for accountability remain (Fox & Stallworth, 2010). Teachers continue to be under mounting pressure from a variety of sources to increase student learning performance (e.g., through federal and state legislative mandates, demanding parents, society in general), with little obvious relief in sight (Steffgen & Ewen, 2007). Educational policy makers and superintendents, and in-school instructional and administrative (e.g., principal) leaders need to be aware that these stressful contingencies contribute to a school workplace context that may be less than ideal to work, setting the stage for increasing the likelihood of teachers’ uncivil behaviors (Waggoner, 2003).
Andersson and Pearson (1999) define workplace incivility as “low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude, discourteous, displaying a lack of respect for others” (p. 457). Incivility is not necessarily objective, as it is a reflection of an individual’s interpretation about how an action made them feel; in other words, it is defined in the eyes of the beholder (Porath & Pearson, 2010). Scholars have cited several antecedents to uncivil behavior such as lack of establishing positive relationships in the organization (i.e., not learning to fit in with coworkers), negative affect (e.g., anxiety, frustration, anger), and demographic dissimilarity (e.g., age, gender) as some of the likely predictors of uncivil behavior in the workplace (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Chen & Eastman, 1997; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Numerous labels have been assigned to uncivil behaviors such as condescending, sarcastic, inconsiderate, rude, and insulting, among others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Increases in workplace incivility have also been associated with organizational outcomes like reduced organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and increased turnover intentions (Laschinger, Leiter, Day, & Gilin, 2009). Workplace incivility can dampen employee productivity and become an economic drain (Porath & Pearson, 2010), and even ruin an organization’s reputation (Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Hutton & Gates, 2008). Because few studies have examined workplace incivility and its possible association with organizational outcomes in the context of a K-12 school, the aim of this research was to investigate the frequency of uncivil behavior among teachers and the influence of workplace incivility on teachers’ commitment to the school and turnover intentions. Educational leaders could use new information generated by this research to find ways to reduce the likelihood of uncivil behavior, increase teacher commitment, and decrease turnover intent among teachers at our schools.
Review Of The Background Literature
In this section, we demonstrate how workplace incivility can be associated with intentional acts of workplace aggression and physical violence (Fox & Stallworth, 2010; Lim et al., 2008; Porath & Pearson, 2010). Second, we link workplace incivility to school outcomes like teacher commitment to the school and turnover intentions.