CH 8 Mistreatment at Work.docx

Perspectives on Interpersonal Mistreatment at Work All too often, we see news headlines involving aggression in the workplace, ranging from angry customers harassing fast food workers to troubling incidents of worker-on-worker violence or the many sexual harassment allegations that surfaced in the #...

Perspectives on Interpersonal Mistreatment at Work All too often, we see news headlines involving aggression in the workplace, ranging from angry customers harassing fast food workers to troubling incidents of worker-on-worker violence or the many sexual harassment allegations that surfaced in the #MeToo movement that grew rapidly beginning in 2017 (e.g., Chicago Tribune, 2020). These examples remind us that a main source of stressors in modern workplaces are our social and interpersonal interactions with other people. Sometimes these stressors are acute (e.g., interpersonal violence), but more often they are subtle, chronic, and ambiguous (e.g., discourteous or unpleasant interactions). How can conflict or rudeness at work be so harmful to worker health, safety, and well-being (WHSWB)? We can at least partially understand interpersonal mistreatment at work through the lens of work-related stress theories (discussed in Chapter 6); any type of conflict constitutes a demand that could threaten or exhaust personal resources. Expanding on this theoretical orientation, conflict between persons is particularly difficult to manage given our innate human desires and needs for affiliation and belongingness (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995). These needs influence our daily motivations, behaviors, emotions, and thoughts, causing us to seek out positive interpersonal interactions and feel unsettled by negative ones. At work, our needs for meaningful interactions can be achieved or frustrated, making interpersonal mistreatment an important area of study and practice for occupational health psychology (OHP) professionals. We can more fully understand the occurrence, impact, and motivations for interpersonal mistreatment at work if we consider this phenomenon as a form of counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB) or workplace deviance. CWB is traditionally seen as one of three forms of work-related performance outcomes; the other two are actual job task performance (i.e., what is expected of employees) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) or contextual performance (i.e., voluntary behaviors that benefit the company or its members; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). CWB encompasses behaviors that violate workplace norms and pose some threat to the well-being of the organization and/or its members (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Negative interpersonal dynamics are captured in commonly used typologies of CWB, with behaviors ranging from minor (e.g., favoritism, gossip) to severe (e.g., sexual harassment, aggression) violations of acceptable interpersonal norms in a work environment (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). The CWB literature has developed quickly over the past couple of decades and now offers additional theoretical explanations for why workers may engage in interpersonal mistreatment and other such behaviors. One perspective is that positive emotions tend to propel workers to engage in OCB, while negative emotions might lead a worker to engage in CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002). This perspective makes logical sense, in that we feel more like helping others if we are in a good mood, but would be more likely to be rude to someone if we are in a bad mood. Alternatively, a reciprocity perspective also makes sense, in that we return bad treatment in exchange for received bad treatment as a way of maintaining balance in our social relationships (Helm et al., 1972). These and other theoretical perspectives help us understand the complex psychology that drives and sustains interpersonal mistreatment at work. This background also guides OHP professionals working to address various forms of interpersonal mistreatment, as we discuss later in this chapter. Types of Interpersonal Mistreatment at Work To understand interpersonal mistreatment at work, we need to start by defining the wide range of experiences that fit within this domain. These experiences vary extensively in terms of their visibility, severity, and content (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Before going further, please note that not all conflict is bad. In fact, conflict in work teams that is directed at a task can potentially benefit performance (e.g., de Wit et al., 2012). The focus of this chapter is person-oriented conflict that is known to have more negative effects for organizations and workers. In the next few subsections, we review types of mistreatment, moving from mild to severe forms. Incivility and Interpersonal Conflict Workplace incivility includes, “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Examples of such behaviors include condescending comments, demeaning remarks, unprofessional language, jokes at another’s expense, or purposefully excluding a colleague from social interactions (Cortina et al., 2001; Matthews & Ritter, 2016). These behaviors can occur face-to-face or through virtual modes of communication (Giumetti et al., 2012). Incivilities like these can be pervasive because they are a “low risk” way to mistreat someone, with the ambiguity in intent making these behaviors difficult to recognize and address (i.e., the same act could be meant as “just a joke” by one individual, but as a malicious remark by another). A major concern with incivility is that “low-intensity” acts can and often do escalate into more serious offenses. This phenomenon is captured in Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) concept of an incivility spiral, which develops when the target of an uncivil act reciprocates potentially at a level that is stronger than the original act (Greco et al., 2019). After a few back-and-forth rounds of interaction, acts that were originally low-intensity can become intentionally harmful. Research does indeed show that retaliatory behavior often increases in severity from interaction to interaction (Greco et al., 2019). Related to this, incivility can be “contagious” within workgroups (Foulk et al., 2016). Andersson and Pearson (1999) proposed that secondary spirals of incivility can occur when an uncivil exchange occurs between individuals who were not the original target and instigator (i.e., the primary spiral), perhaps when the original target acts out toward others or when others begin to mimic observed negative interactional patterns. In contrast to incivility, interpersonal conflict tends to be more overt. This form of interpersonal mistreatment is often defined as a “negative interpersonal encounter characterized by a contentious exchange, hostility, or aggression” (Ilies et al., 2015, p. 2). Some aspects of interpersonal conflict overlap with incivility (e.g., disrespectful behavior), but interpersonal conflict can also take place in a manner that is respectful, albeit involving opposing views. These interactions can occur among coworkers, as well as in interactions with customers or clients. Service workers are particularly vulnerable to customer-related conflicts (Grandey et al., 2004; Sliter & Jones, 2016). Some studies have even found that interpersonal conflict with customers demonstrates a stronger relationship with burnout and performance, when compared to coworker conflict (Sliter et al., 2011). Harassment, Bullying, and Physical Violence Some forms of interpersonal mistreatment are intentional, with the goal of harming someone psychologically, socially, or physically (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The International Labour Organization (2019) defines violence and harassment at work as “a range of unacceptable behaviors and practices, or threats thereof, whether in a single occurrence or repeated, that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm…” (Definitions, section a). For instigators, such behaviors may be instrumental (i.e., to achieve some goal) or impulsive, often driven by emotion (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Workplace harassment can be defined several ways, with legal definitions often involving negative behaviors targeted at someone based on race, color, sex, religion, or disability differences. Many governing bodies consider these behaviors to be illegal when enduring negative treatment becomes a condition of employment or when the unwanted conduct creates a work environment that is hostile, degrading, intimidating, or offensive (e.g., European Commission, 2000; U.S. EEOC, n.d.). Harassment is, unfortunately, very common, with 28,000 harassment allegations in 2015 just in the United States (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016). Even more concerning, victims of harassment often do not report their experiences, and deny, downplay, or try to ignore the situation. Many victims realistically fear retaliation if they report harassment; one study found 66% of employees who did voice concerns about mistreatment experienced negative social and work-related consequences (e.g., shunning, gossip, denied training/promotion opportunities, undesirable task assignments; Cortina & Magley, 2003). Bullying occurs when an individual is frequently the target of negative actions for which they have difficulty defending themselves (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996). When multiple perpetrators are involved, this form of mistreatment is sometimes referred to as mobbing (Leymann, 1996). Bullying behaviors can include isolating someone, manipulating information given to them, creating uncomfortable working conditions, engaging in actual emotional abuse, or discrediting or devaluing their professional abilities (Escartín et al., 2009). The most harmful effects of bullying develop and worsen over time as these behaviors tend to be repeated (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Workplace bullying does not just occur in-person or among colleagues. For example, school bus drivers have been noted to be victim to bullying from students (Goodboy et al., 2016), which can take a major toll on psychological health and even their ability to focus on working safely. As electronic and virtual communication increases, attention to workplace cyberbullying is also growing (Kowalski et al., 2018). Abusive supervision is often considered a type of bullying that comes from one’s supervisor. Tepper (2000) describes abusive supervision as, “sustained displays of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178). Key features of abusive supervision are that it is enduring and unlikely to end unless either the target or perpetrator ends the relationship or the perpetrator decides to change their behavior. Drawing from broader theories on abuse, Tepper describes that abusive supervision can be particularly problematic because the “abuser” holds some level of perceived or real power over the victim. Abusers also tend to be either unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the harmfulness of their behaviors. Because it is difficult to change abusive supervisors’ behavior and because such behavior is likely to have consistent, negative effects on WHSWB outcomes (Mackey et al., 2015), organizations are encouraged to adopt a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to abusive supervision (Tepper et al., 2008). Most forms of mistreatment we have explored so far are social or psychological in form. Sometimes, however, mistreatment can take physically aggressive forms as acts of violence. Thankfully, such acts are much less common than other forms of mistreatment in organizations. When worker-on-worker violence does occur, it is often associated with perceived injustice and other forms of social and environmental stressors (Neuman & Baron, 1998). More often, violence experienced at work is committed by organizational outsiders who simply plan to do harm (e.g., robberies) or affiliated individuals like former employees, significant others, customers, or clients (Barling et al., 2009). Although some violent acts are certainly unpredictable, Barling et al. (2009) point out that some occupational features are associated with a greater risk for violence (e.g., regular contact with customers or clients who may be in a heightened state of negative emotions). It may surprise you that healthcare workers are among the most likely to experience work-related aggression or violence, second only to police officers, who experience the highest rates of violence from the public (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Even the fear or anticipation of violence can be related to poor psychological health effects on workers (Rogers & Kelloway, 1997). Thankfully, there is some evidence that a work climate emphasizing violence prevention can offset some of these effects (Mueller & Tschan, 2011). Individual and Environmental Predictors of Interpersonal Mistreatment Earlier, we introduced the idea that emotions and reciprocity motives could influence decisions to engage in CWB in general. Researchers have tried to understand more specifically who tends to be involved in acts of interpersonal mistreatment and the various factors that make these behaviors more likely to occur at work. While certain forms of mistreatment are associated with unique antecedents, we focus in this section on essential and general contributing factors. Who Tends to Be Involved? The term perpetrator is often used when referring to the person who commits an uncivil act that affects a target or victim. These labels can lead us to oversimplify interpersonal mistreatment as a phenomenon. It may be more accurate to consider mistreatment as an unfolding relationship, in which an initial perpetrator can become a target and vice versa (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). This relational perspective makes sense given what is understood about reciprocity motives (mentioned earlier), and is supported by evidence that individuals are prone to retaliate to experienced mistreatment (e.g., Gallus et al., 2014; Hershcovis et al., 2012). Keeping this in mind reinforces the idea that incivility is often an ongoing, dynamic interaction rather than a one-way exchange. This perspective also highlights that addressing incivility at work requires more than simply trying to identify and remove any “bad seeds”; in reality, all workers have the potential at times to be both perpetrator and victim. That said, those involved in workplace conflict (targets and perpetrators), tend to have underlying dispositions that are characterized by strong negative traits (e.g., neuroticism, negative affect, hostile attribution style) and negative self-perceptions (e.g., low self-esteem; Aquino & Thau, 2009; Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). It is a challenge to clearly determine if traits like negative affect or neuroticism “attract” incivility, or if these traits enhance sensitivity to potentially uncivil acts, given the experiential and perceptual nature of incivility (Aquino & Thau, 2009). For instance, those higher in negative affect tend to be more likely to report experiencing incivility and are likely to have stronger responses to perceived uncivil acts (Penney & Spector, 2005). More specifically with respect to perpetrators, trait anger and impulsivity are fairly consistent predictors of workplace aggression (Glomb et al., 2002). Finally, some researchers suggest that combinations of individual traits can be more likely to create patterns of negative interactions, such as a domineering perpetrator and a submissive target (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Research also suggests that power differentials and task interdependence can impact aggressive exchanges, sometimes in fairly complex ways. For instance, targets of aggression may only retaliate against perpetrators with a higher power status if they do not work together closely (Hershcovis et al., 2012). Somewhat related to this perspective is the finding that several forms of conflict and aggression are more commonly experienced by those who belong to disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. Although research testing this theory does not always yield consistent findings, women, older employees, and ethnic minorities are often more likely to be targets of mistreatment at work (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Because of this, the concept of intersectionality is particularly important to also consider when working to address this WHSWB issue. For example, black women may be more likely to be the target of interpersonal mistreatment as members of two common, but minority groups (based on race and sex) and this can take a substantial toll on their health (e.g., Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2008). When and Where is Interpersonal Mistreatment Likely? Many forms of mistreatment are explained less by individual characteristics and more by situational characteristics. Studies suggest that rates of interpersonal conflict vary by occupational groups (e.g., Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2010), again highlighting the influence of task and contextual characteristics on such behaviors. It is worth repeating that some work environments are particularly prone to fostering incivility from customers or clients, especially if the work being done involves customer service, working with people with heightened emotions, or direct access to cash or valued goods (Barling et al., 2009; Sliter & Jones, 2016). This connection between work environment and interpersonal mistreatment can also be understood with the help of Folger and Skarlicki’s (1998) popcorn metaphor – as popcorn kernels are heated in oil, they are increasingly likely to pop. Some kernels are quicker to pop than others, but no kernels will pop if they are not placed in oil. Organizations can proactively create environments that are “oil-free” or at least “oil-light”, and therefore not primed to promote incivility, aggression, or violence. Across a number of work environments, experiences of injustice, poor leadership, high levels of work stressors, and even boredom in some circumstances, are all related to interpersonal mistreatment (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Folger & Skarlicki, 1998). These types of negative work experiences may also result in worker aggression because they create a strong emotional response, which for some can lead to impulsive anger, or because these acts negatively affect worker attitudes, which over time can motivate workers toward interpersonal deviance (Glomb et al., 2002). Together, these findings and theoretical perspectives imply that efforts to provide sufficient resources to offset job demands could make a difference in limiting the likelihood of mistreatment among workers. An organization’s culture can also strongly influence interpersonal mistreatment at work (e.g., Glomb et al., 2002). As emphasized throughout this book and in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), worker behaviors are in influenced by perceived interpersonal and social norms. With respect to interpersonal mistreatment, workers are more likely to act in an aggressive way if they perceive that others would either not care or might even approve of such behavior. Some organizational cultures and workgroup climates may generally support aggressive behavior as acceptable (Glomb et al., 2002). Studies find that workgroup climates around incivility affect important outcomes like group cohesion and worker satisfaction (Paulin & Griffin, 2015). Broadly speaking, competitive or very informal climates at work can also promote conflict because of the “no time to be nice” mentality that is often present in competitive environments (Pearson & Porath, 2005) or ambiguity regarding what behaviors would be considered inappropriate with informal climates (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Why Interpersonal Mistreatment Matters Minimizing interpersonal mistreatment at work needs to be a goal for all of us, if for no other reason than that it is a human right to be treated with dignity and respect (e.g., https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html). In this section, we highlight three additional reasons why this WHSWB topic needs attention. Prevalence and Impact on Workers Only about five percent of workers experience severe forms of interpersonal mistreatment such as violence or bullying (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2010). However, these statistics are less encouraging when considering less severe forms of mistreatment: 50% or more of workers may experience some form of harassment (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016) and potentially 70% of workers experience incivility at work (Cortina et al., 2001). Even with milder forms of mistreatment, “the conduct is subtle, the consequences are not” (Cortina et al., 2017, p. 299). It is therefore unsurprising that all forms of interpersonal mistreatment are negatively associated with a variety of health-related outcomes. Physical harm certainly can occur as a result of workplace violence (Barling et al., 2009), with devastating costs associated with physical injury or even loss of life. More commonly experienced outcomes, however, involve psychological harm. Meta-analyses and detailed reviews of the literature find that harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), incivility (Cortina et al., 2017), and bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012) all relate negatively to psychological health outcomes and individuals’ ability to enjoy their work. Ripple Effects Beyond the Workplace Effects of interpersonal mistreatment at work are not constrained to a single worker or specific work environment. Workplace aggression can also affect victimized workers’ significant others. For example, experiences with abusive supervision have been positively correlated with work-family conflict (Tepper, 2000) and experiences with workplace aggression are linked to psychological distress in one’s partner (Haines et al., 2006). Coping with harassment or abuse is difficult, and some workers may fall into maladaptive routines that include use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (e.g., Richman et al., 2002). Related to and compounding this, instances of incivility can harm workers’ abilities to psychologically detach during the evenings after work (Park et al., 2015), affecting their ability to replenish personal resources. Mistreatment experienced at work has negative effects that transcend the workplace; this is why addressing interpersonal mistreatment at work directly is so critical. Bad for Business Interpersonal mistreatment can negatively affect organizations in many ways. Severe cases of interpersonal mistreatment can lead to lawsuits and associated legal fees and settlements (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016; Lieber, 2010). Subtler forms of mistreatment can also be costly to organizations in terms of time spent by managers to respond to incivility when it occurs (Porath & Pearson, 2013) and reduced worker productivity, either due to distraction or withdrawal due to a mistreatment incident (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Porath & Pearson, 2013). These costs can be substantial. As an example from a well-regarded organization, Cisco estimated that incivility among its workers cost the company around $12 million a year. To address this, Cisco started its global workplace civility program (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Also bad for business are the CWBs that often occur in response to interpersonal mistreatment at work (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Tepper et al., 2008). Enacting CWB may be a method for coping or “rebalancing” for those who experience work-related incivility or other forms of mistreatment (Krischer et al., 2010). In this way, CWB can contribute to the incivility spirals mentioned earlier (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and ignoring persistent incivility among workers may facilitate its spread within workgroups (Foulk et al., 2016). The business-related impacts of this within an organization are obvious, but these effects can also transcend a workforce. For example, mistreatment among coworkers makes customers uncomfortable and can even make them less likely to purchase an organization’s goods or services (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Finally, interpersonal mistreatment can impact the recruitment and retention of talented workers. Interpersonal mistreatment is related to reduced worker empowerment and organizational commitment, and increased levels of work withdrawal and turnover intentions (Kabat-Farr et al., 2018; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Mistreatment at work also weakens efforts to create inclusive and diverse workforces, as incivilities can sometimes become a subtle, modern form of discrimination, particularly impacting women and racial minorities (Cortina et al., 2011). These issues are particularly concerning when combined with the reality that many workers would rather leave an uncivil work environment (especially if the perpetrator has power or authority), than report a problem and work to resolve it (Zapf & Gross, 2010). Methodological Considerations and Practical Recommendations Efforts to prevent and manage interpersonal mistreatment at work have to start with a clear assessment of the state of civility and prevalence of mistreatment within an organization. Building on this information, there are several promising strategies that OHP professionals can use to prevent or reduce mistreatment. Measuring and Monitoring Interpersonal Mistreatment Assessment or evaluation is a particularly important step when it comes to addressing interpersonal mistreatment at work (Glomb et al., 2002), allowing organizations to take an “honest look in the mirror” regarding their state of civility (Pearson & Porath, 2005). This could be done through examining filed complaints (though there are legitimate concerns about underreporting; e.g., Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016), intentional observations of interpersonal interactions in the workplace, anonymous surveys, and even exit interview questions about the interpersonal climate. Engaging external observers may help to identify incivility that may not seem problematic (e.g., inappropriate jokes; passive aggressive tendencies), but could be detrimental. Observers could also examine aspects of the physical work environment and review processes and procedures to identify risks for violence or aggression (for an example of review guidelines for a healthcare setting see Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2016). When gathering self-report data, a variety of formats can be used (e.g., measuring the frequency, source, duration, and intensity of interpersonal mistreatment). Several established measures have been developed to assess incivility at work (Cortina et al., 2001; Matthews & Ritter, 2016), interpersonal conflict at work (Spector & Jex, 1998), workplace violence (Rogers & Kelloway, 1997), or abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). You may also want to evaluate the overall climate toward aggression, incivility, or violence prevention in a work environment (e.g., Mueller & Tschan, 2011; Paulin & Griffin, 2015; Spector et al., 2007) to understand whether mistreatment is socially normative or accepted. If problems with interpersonal mistreatment are evident, more granular assessment of critical incidents and worker interactions (perhaps with daily diary studies) may be helpful (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). When gathering mistreatment-related data of any form, workers have to be able to trust that the experiences, feelings, and perspectives they share are confidential and secure. Unfortunately, retaliation against workers who report mistreatment is not uncommon (Cortina & Magley, 2003), so these types of data collection efforts must be managed well. Workers also must believe their reports will be truly considered and acted upon as valid. Organizations that conduct general employee attitude or specific civility surveys, uncover issues with mistreatment, but then do nothing in response, are signaling that mistreatment is not a real concern and implicitly allowing it to continue. When it comes to interpersonal mistreatment, asking and then doing nothing in response to reports could do more damage than not asking in the first place. Intervening to Improve Interpersonal Treatment Efforts to address incivility and mistreatment at work necessarily target reduction and prevention of such behaviors at the individual worker, group, and broader organizational level. We examine a number of these strategies in this section. For readers wanting more, Yamada (2020) summarizes an extensive list of resources pertaining especially to workplace bullying. Strategies for Individuals Despite careful selection efforts and a generally positive workplace culture, interpersonal mistreatment will likely occur in work settings. A first step toward reducing incivility at work is to educate all workers about behaviors that are acceptable and unacceptable, and what to do when any form of interpersonal mistreatment is observed or experienced. For example, sexual harassment trainings can help workers to understand what is considered an inappropriate behavior and what an appropriate response to such behaviors would be (Buchanan et al., 2014). Also helpful may be training to improve effective communication strategies in typical and stressful situations (e.g., Howard & Embree, 2020). Simple misunderstandings and unclear communication can unfortunately be common triggers for incivility. Workers can also be taught emotion regulation techniques (Glomb et al., 2002), emotional expression skills (e.g., Kirk et al., 2011), and positive-refocusing strategies (Grandey et al., 2004) to effectively manage reactions that might otherwise lead to incivility or other forms of mistreatment. Feelings of control and empowerment can be bolstered by these types of trainings, and function as particularly important resources when workers confront difficult interpersonal situations with coworkers or customers (e.g., Ben-Zur & Yagil, 2005). Another approach to intervention at the individual worker level involves training workers how to reduce negative reactions or harm caused by others’ incivility. De-escalation training is an example of this approach that can be useful for workers who are at risk for negatively charged interpersonal interactions, particularly with clients, customers, or patients. Such trainings are common elements to violence prevention initiatives for law enforcement professionals (Engel et al., 2020) and healthcare workers (Arbury et al., 2017). Typically, these trainings focus on teaching verbal communication skills to “talk down” individuals in a heightened negative state and behavioral response techniques that can be employed if physical safety is threatened. Related to this, there may also be value in helping workers to identify and more civilly respond when personal interactions begin to turn uncivil (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2017). Although this may seem simplistic, the reality is many of us can get caught up in interpersonal disputes and have a hard time recognizing when we should simply be apologizing, rather than defending or trying to get even. Strategies for Groups, Leaders, and Organizations We know that incivility can be “contagious” (Foulk et al., 2016), so there is often a need to address civility in workgroups. The Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW) intervention, which was developed and administered among workers at Veteran’s Health Administration Hospitals, is one example of this type of group intervention (Osatuke et al., 2009). The concept of this intervention is simple: give work groups regular (i.e., weekly) time to talk about their strengths and weaknesses around civility. When originally evaluated, this intervention lasted six months, starting with sharing baseline data on civility in workgroups and allowing participating workers to set goals for what aspects of civility they wanted to address. This intervention was intentionally flexible, providing structured meeting times that were used to address unique needs, with guidance from consultants as needed to provide educational resources and even information sharing on what other workgroups were finding to be effective. Through regular conversations and support from the organization (i.e., time and encouragement to engage in these conversations), participating workgroups reported higher civility compared to comparison groups. Additional tests of this CREW intervention among healthcare workers showed positive and lasting effects on job satisfaction and trust in management (Leiter et al., 2012; Leiter et al., 2011). Workgroups, as well as supervisors, can also be powerful sources of support that can help to limit interpersonal mistreatment. Strong perceptions of shared responsibility within a workgroup can increase the likelihood of a coworker intervening if they witness some form of interpersonal mistreatment (e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2017). This is the logic driving efforts to empower workers to stand up for one another, leveraging their own personal resources (e.g., power, status, confidence) to protect other coworkers. A specific form of this type of approach is found in bystander training interventions trainings, which encourage witnesses of mistreatment to speak up. Bystander interventions are gaining more attention as a strategy with potential to prevent sexual harassment (McDonald et al., 2015), as well as workplace intimate partner violence and workplace bullying (Lassiter et al., 2018). Despite their potential, these sorts of interventions can only achieve maximum effect if reinforced by the culture and leadership throughout an organization (e.g., Meyer & Zelin, 2019). Going beyond training bystanders to recognize and report mistreatment incidents, organizations can also consider allyship initiatives to encourage those with advantaged status (e.g., based on role, race, gender) to proactively advocate for those who may be disadvantaged in some way (see Edwards, 2006 for a conceptual review). Shifting more completely to the level of leaders and the overall organization, it is worth noting that, “Leadership practices and organisational culture, as well as the misuse of power are always, somehow, related to the onset, as well as the prevention of, harassment at work” (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2010, p. 112). To reduce interpersonal mistreatment, leaders and organizations have two general responsibilities: (1) try to stop negative treatment from occurring in the first place (prevention), and (2) respond quickly and appropriately when mistreatment is observed or reported (response). These prevention and response strategies can take a number of forms. Although there is no single profile that describes all perpetrators of incivility, thorough background and reference checks, resume reviews, and interviews can help to reveal subtle warning signs and competencies that are predictive of civil or uncivil behavior, such as ability to handle stress and control negative emotions (Glomb et al., 2002; Pearson & Porath, 2005). Similarly, organizations can modify some aspects of the work environment to make interpersonal mistreatment less likely. Because workplace stress can be a strong driver of negative emotion and conflict (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Glomb et al., 2002), efforts to manage psychosocial and physical work demands (discussed more in Chapters 7 and 10) are particularly warranted. Establishing a clear and consistent response to interpersonal mistreatment is another way organizations can protect and promote WHSWB. This message can be incorporated into formal policy, connected to the company’s overall mission and values (e.g., that all workers are treated with respect), and included in onboarding and regular training. Emphasizing expectations for civility and mutual respect to newcomers, both formally and informally, can enhance efforts to foster positive work relationships (Pearson & Porath, 2005). Formal values of civility, along with reinforcing messages by leadership and peers, are the foundation for a positive organizational climate that minimizes harassment, aggression, and other forms of incivility (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2014). Correspondingly, when mistreatment incidents do occur, victims need opportunities to voice concerns safely (i.e., without risk of retaliation), allowing them to regain a sense of control and experience fewer negative personal outcomes (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Formal policies and practices should be clear regarding how incidents of incivility will be handled, and consistently applied, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) or target(s) may be. Failing to respond to concerns can leave the reporting victim feeling unheard and set a precedent that there are not real consequences to uncivil behavior. Finally, organizations may also want to consider larger-scale interventions or trainings focused on unlikely, but costly incidents of violence. Increasingly, organizations are preparing for the rare, but terrible instances of violence with active-shooter trainings and other preventative measures (McGraw, 2016). Proactively, organizations can create climates where violence prevention is a key value (Mueller & Tschan, 2011), helping workers to feel more secure in their work roles, even when these risks exist. Evaluating Interpersonal Mistreatment Interventions In addition to our overall intervention evaluation recommendations in Chapter 2, there are a few specific concepts to keep in mind when addressing interpersonal mistreatment. First, as is true with interventions to address several WHSWB challenges, some indicators associated with interpersonal mistreatment may get worse before they get better. For instance, recently refined company policies and procedures for reporting harassment, may initially lead to an influx of new reports. These metrics may not mean that these changes are causing more mistreatment. Instead, this increase in reporting is a sign that workers feel more comfortable and empowered to come forward. Second, and related to the first point, evaluating incivility-related interventions is likely to require an extended time period of observation before real change is evident. You will want to see if reports of harassment and related mistreatment do diminish over time, as evidence that the organization’s new policies and procedures are working as intended. It is also important to ensure that the benefits of efforts to improve the social climate within work groups are lasting. Think of team-building type interventions that create a sense of trust and solidarity that shatters when a stressful event occurs. Workgroups may not master civil interactions after a single training and they may need reminders/refreshers over time as they transfer their skills or discussions into their everyday work environments. Lastly, we cannot emphasize enough that evaluating interpersonal mistreatment interventions requires gathering data from many stakeholders with potentially many different perspectives, paying careful attention to confidentiality. When it comes to incivility and other forms of mistreatment, those with little power can be prone to keeping quiet if they do not feel safe voicing their opinions. The social climate at work cannot be improved unless we know workers’ honest perceptions and concerns. Concluding Thoughts and Reality Check The workplace provides an opportunity for individuals to feel a real sense of connection to one another through positive interpersonal relationships. Working closely with others can also create opportunities for interpersonal mistreatment, which can take many different forms, ranging from mild instances of rudeness to persistent and severe forms of psychological abuse and potentially physical violence. These sorts of experiences can often arise from customers or clients experiencing negative emotions, as well as among colleagues who are experiencing stress and working in an organizational culture in which there is “no time to be nice”. Even the most subtle acts of mistreatment can take a negative toll on workers’ well-being, job attitudes, and commitment to the organization. This is why interpersonal mistreatment is a topic that cannot be ignored by OHP professionals or organization leaders. Work environments in which interpersonal mistreatment is normalized and accepted are simply incompatible with values for human dignity, inclusion, and diversity. This is especially true given that subtle forms of mistreatment often affect disadvantaged groups at a higher rate (i.e., selective incivility, a form of discrimination; Cortina et al., 2011). Current global trends toward diversity in society and work organizations means that there will be more potential for differing perspectives and viewpoints, and unfortunately, interpersonal mistreatment. OHP professionals can help organizations to prioritize civility and increase the prevalence of proper and positive interpersonal treatment at work.