خشونت واحد کار ، رضایت شغلی، و مدیریت کیفیت جامع در میان کارکنان حمل و نقل
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6108||2011||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 47, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 1210–1220
Survey results from 1381 employees working in a state department of transportation tested the idea that uncivil work environments bear undesirable consequences for job satisfaction and diminish the effectiveness of quality management practices. Results demonstrated that incivility does not have to be personally experienced to have deleterious effects, merely witnessed. Perceived workplace incivility was found to adversely affect job satisfaction and the effectiveness of quality programs aimed at teamwork, customer focus and continuous improvement, even after controlling for race, gender and prior experience of harassment. Managers are advised to broaden their consideration of incivility to include its effects on observers.
Over the last decade managers and employees alike have commented that American workplaces are increasingly characterized by rudeness, disrespect, and a lack of courtesy. The results of several nation-wide polls have shown that people believe workplace incivility is on the rise (Marks, 1996 and Melton, 2000) and the topic has drawn the attention of the popular business press (e.g., Sutton, 2007). A 2002 study conducted by Public Agenda, for example, reported that 79% of Americans believed that a lack of courtesy is a serious problem, 61% asserted that rude behavior had increased in recent years, and 68% indicated that they had observed rude or disrespectful behavior at work (Remington and Darden, 2002). Based on multiple studies entailing 9000 employees, Pearson and Porath (2009a) found that 99% reported witnessing incivility at work and 96% claimed to have experienced incivility. Moreover, incivility is not just an American phenomenon but is international in scope (Pearson and Porath, 2005 and Porath and Erez, 2009) and has permeated the virtual world as well (Lim and Teo, 2009). Research involving transportation employees has typically focused on positive employee behaviors and how they can be promoted by developing and fostering positive attitudes on the part of transportation employees (McElroy et al., 1997 and McElroy et al., 1993). Recently researchers have undertaken efforts to look at the effects of negative attitudes and behaviors, such as workplace incivility (e.g., Cortina, 2008 and Cortina et al., 2001). This line of research has in part been fueled by research showing that the consequences on individuals of negative workplace interactions are five times more powerful than are positive interactions (Miner et al., 2005). This research has yielded insight into what workplace incivility entails, its frequency, and its impact on individual and organizational work performance. Cortina et al. (2001) found that 71% of federal court system employees reported personally experiencing workplace incivility during the previous 5 years. Cortina (2008) reports similar findings using university employees (75%) and law enforcement personnel (79%). Although workplace incivility is not as dramatic as overt harassment, people subjected to it seldom file formal complaints (Cortina and Magley, 2009), leaving room for it to escalate into more severe forms of hostile work behavior. An important issue surrounding workplace incivility is whether it is a phenomenon that only affects targeted individuals. Porath et al. (2010), for example, recently found that observing incivility among employees resulted in consumers making negative inferences about that firm, the people who work in it, and how they would be treated in a future encounter with the firm. This implies that incivility may have far ranging effects. However, most of the research to date has focused on the effects of personally experienced incivility (i.e., when one is the target of incivility), but Porath et al.’s (2010) work infers that incivility may have vicarious effects on others in the work environment as well. Work environments where acts of incivility are commonly witnessed may ignite an “incivility spiral” that, over time, becomes a defining characteristic of the work climate (Andersson and Pearson, 1999) and may, in turn, have adverse “spillover” consequences for individual employees’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
6.1. Contributions of the paper This study makes several important contributions to the literatures on incivility and TQM. With respect to incivility, this paper is the first to propose an explicit measure of work unit incivility that is independent of individuals’ personal experiences with incivility. Using this measure, we show that one does not have to actually experience incivility for it to have negative effects, thus extending the work of Lim et al. (2008) and Porath et al. (2010). In addition to demonstrating the adverse impact of incivility on employees, this study also contributes to TQM research, by helping us understand why some programs are successful while others fail. Morrow (1997), for example, reported that perceptions of warmth and high satisfaction with coworkers were associated with more favorable views of TQM practices among transportation agency employees. Similarly, Anderson et al. (1998) found positive associations between morale (i.e., job satisfaction) and customer satisfaction (but not teamwork) among logistics personnel who were members of a professional transportation and logistics association. The finding here, that incivility is related to lower levels of job satisfaction, suggests that the underlying culture within a company or work unit is one of the keys to successful TQM efforts. Several efforts have been undertaken to evaluate the success and failure rates of TQM initiatives (e.g., Mohrman et al., 1995, Kaynak, 2003 and Sila, 2007) and have yielded mixed results sometimes dependent on the specific quality management practice (Nair, 2006). Still, the vast majority of companies (70%) rate their programs as successful (Sila, 2007). One explanation for the discrepant findings may be a failure to consider work climate dimensions such as work unit incivility. Our findings support the claim by Felps et al. (2006) that even one disgruntled team member behaving in an uncivil manner (i.e., a “bad apple”) may be sufficient to “spoil the barrel” by initiating a spiral of incivility. Such a contextual factor may hold the explanatory key as to variation in TQM success and would be highly consistent with Sila’s (2007) and others’ calls for more consideration of contextual elements. Given our finding that the adverse effects of work unit incivility are consistently evidenced even after employee race, gender, and prior harassment experiences are taken into account, suggests that it is not enough for companies to build cooperative cultural values to support TQM efforts (Detert et al., 2003 and Kull and Narasimhan, 2010). Rather, companies need to ferret out even the illusion of incivility within their places of work. 6.2. Limitations These results must be viewed within the context of this study’s limitations. As is common with survey research, data are cross-sectional and subject to common-method bias, although CMV tests indicated that this was an unlikely explanation for the findings. In addition, several measures used in this study were heavily influenced and constrained by the management of the organization in question. The work unit incivility measure, for example, would benefit from making two separate items from the question asking respondents about hearing comments or observing behaviors that could be construed as uncivil. Our work related outcomes were limited to attitudes and perceptions of behavior, not objective measures of behavior or work performance. This limitation is perhaps tempered though by others’ research demonstrating linkages between job satisfaction and performance (e.g., Harter et al., 2002) and TQM and performance (e.g., Mar Fuentes-Fuentes et al., 2004). Additional studies of incivility at the work unit level need to be undertaken and should include examinations within the private sector. Finally, the fact that these data came from a single transportation organization leaves the issue of generalizability in question. This limitation is tempered by the fact that this organization was both large and similar to other state transportation agencies. Nevertheless, future research needs to examine the effects of work unit incivility across a variety of organizations. 6.3. Managerial implications In spite of these limitations, our findings have practical implications for organizations. Managers seeking to maximize their understanding of employee attitudes and behaviors should be encouraged to expand their thinking on these issues. The idea, demonstrated in this study, that incivility is a perceived phenomenon suggests that one does not necessarily have to experience it for it to have adverse effects. Consequently, managers need to be cognizant of this and aware of how it deals with occurrences of incivility, particularly since only 1–6% of those who experience incivility ever file a formal complaint (Cortina and Magley, 2009). Allowing uncivil behaviors to continue, or even failing to disseminate information on how uncivil behaviors are dealt with, can create an ever-burgeoning climate of incivility. There is also great potential for these adverse effects to extend to how employees interface with customers and/or clients, as suggested by Porath et al. (2010). Managing incivility may be even more challenging than outright harassment or discrimination since these less ambiguous behaviors can be resolved using legal or organizationally codified sanctions. Thus finding ways to establish and maintain workplace decorum merits attention from researchers and practitioners alike. One option is to monitor employee perceptions of incivility as these perceptions may serve as an early warning for later adverse effects. Such monitoring could be coupled with efforts on the part of management to directly involve employees in the re-setting of norms. Making employees aware of how incivility coarsens the fabric of daily life and providing suggestions for how to respond when confronted with incivility might be helpful. After all, if the effects of incivility can spread vicariously, so can the effects of how it is dealt with within organizations. Another implication of these findings is reflected in the high level of interconnectedness between the dimensions of job satisfaction and the endorsement of TQM precepts. Shared method error explanations aside, the co-variation suggests that managers may benefit from the reciprocal nature of employee attitudes such as job satisfaction and willingness to engage in TQM. Our findings suggest that decreasing incivility would likely result in heightened levels of both outcomes. Moreover, if workplace incivility can affect TQM efforts, it would be interesting to examine its influence on other forms of organization change (e.g., downsizing, mergers, etc.). More generally speaking, minimizing incivility is important for creation of organizational climates receptive to organizational change. State transportation organizations, because they are in the public sector, must frequently respond to government induced changes and having a civil work climate will facilitate making such changes. Moreover, a civil work environment minimizes reputational issues important to organizations in the public eye. The growing research on incivility, at both the personal and work unit levels, indicates that its consequences are more extensive than previously thought. Hopefully this new awareness will help organizational leaders be more attuned to workplace incivility and to finding ways to reduce it.