ArticlePDF Available

Unseen Injustice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations

January 2008
Academy of Management Review 33(1)

DOI:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097

Authors:

University of Michigan

This article advances a theory of incivility as a veiled manifestation of sexism and racism in organizations. To support this argument, I draw from social psychological research on modern discrimination. The result is a multilevel model of selective incivility, with determinants at the level of the person, organization, and society. Selective incivility could be one mechanism by which gender and racial disparities persist in American organizations, despite concerted efforts to eradicate bias. I dis- cuss scientific and practical implications.

No caption available

…

No caption available

…

Figures - uploaded by Lilia Cortina

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Lilia Cortina

Content may be subject to copyright.

UNSEEN INJUSTICE: INCIVILITY AS MODERN

DISCRIMINATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

LILIA M. CORTINA

University of Michigan

This article advances a theory of incivility as a veiled manifestation of sexism and

racism in organizations. To support this argument, I draw from social psychological

research on modern discrimination. The result is a multilevel model of selective

incivility, with determinants at the level of the person, organization, and society.

Selective incivility could be one mechanism by which gender and racial disparities

persist in American organizations, despite concerted efforts to eradicate bias. I dis-

cuss scientific and practical implications.

Recent years have seen increasing scholar-

ship on subtle, nonphysical manifestations of

interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace, in-

cluding general incivility. This term encom-

passes low-intensity conduct that lacks a clear

intent to harm but nevertheless violates social

norms and injures targeted employees (Anders-

son & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams,

& Langhout, 2001). In this paper I extend the

notion of incivility by examining it through

lenses of gender and race. The central argument

is that incivility, in some cases, is not “general”

at all but instead represents contemporary man-

ifestations of gender and racial bias in the work-

place. That is, with the rise of taboos, policies,

and laws prohibiting discrimination against

specific social groups, blatant intentions and

efforts to alienate women and minorities from

organizational life are no longer tolerated. How-

ever, one can mask discrimination (even without

realizing it) behind everyday acts of incivility

and still maintain an unbiased image. This

would be consistent with research demonstrat-

ing that prejudices persist in covert forms within

society in general (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner,

1998) and within organizations in particular

(e.g., Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000).

I begin the article with a recap of theory and

findings from research on workplace incivility.

Next is an in-depth review of theories of modern

discrimination, focusing on cognitive, affective,

social, and organizational antecedents. An inte-

gration of these two bodies of literature then

supports the proposition that incivility can con-

stitute a particularly insidious, behavioral man-

ifestation of modern/contemporary/covert sex-

ism and racism. The result is a multilevel model

of incivility as modern discrimination in organi-

zations. In the latter half of the paper, I address

implications of this “selective incivility” model

for research, policy, and practice in organiza-

tions. The following definition of workplace dis-

crimination frames this work: “Unfair employ-

ment discrimination [occurs] when persons in a

‘social category’...areputatadisadvantage in

the workplace relative to other groups with com-

parable potential or proven success” (Dipboye &

Halverson, 2004: 131).

This article’s novel contributions are fourfold.

First, by building bridges with social psycholog-

ical scholarship on discrimination, I extend the

organizational literature on antisocial work be-

havior to address issues of race and gender.

Most studies of workplace aggression, deviance,

bullying, and so forth to date have focused al-

most exclusively on “general” conduct irrespec-

tive of social categories, without recognizing

that antisocial work behavior may often reflect

bias against members of undervalued social

groups. A second contribution of the present

work is to the social psychology literature. A

common criticism of social psychology (e.g.,

Fiske, 2000) is that research on “discrimination”

and “intergroup conflict” has addressed atti-

tudes and affect in great detail, often to the

neglect of action. Attitudes, stereotypes, and

ideologies are certainly important, but a com-

plete understanding of intergroup relations re-

Portions of this paper were presented in April 2004 at the

annual meeting of the Society for Industrial-Organizational

Psychology, Chicago. Many thanks to Kim Lonsway, Abby

Stewart, and Arzu Wasti for their valuable comments on

earlier versions.

姝 Academy of Management Review

2008, Vol. 33, No. 1, 55–75.

holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

quires attention to intergroup behavior. The cur-

rent article does just that by bringing to light the

specific behavioral experience of selective inci-

vility. The few psychologists who have looked at

actual discriminatory conduct have generally

focused on “formal discrimination”—for exam-

ple, unfair selection decisions (e.g., Brief et al.,

2000; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). In contrast, I

take an in-depth look at a form of “interpersonal

discrimination,” which Hebl, Foster, Mannix,

and Dovidio define as “nonverbal, paraverbal,

and...verbal behaviors that occur in social in-

teractions” (2002: 816); this represents a third

contribution of the present article. Finally, I in-

tegrate concepts from organizational and social

psychology, management science, and the law

to propose fruitful new directions for research

and practice in cases of selective incivility in

the workplace.

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY: DEFINITION,

INCIDENCE, AND IMPACT

Andersson and Pearson define workplace in-

civility 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 and dis-

courteous, displaying a lack of regard for oth-

ers” (1999: 457). They conceptualize this as a spe-

cific form of employee deviance (Robinson &

Bennett, 1995), which, in turn, represents a sub-

set of antisocial employee behavior (Giacolone

& Greenberg, 1997). When unambiguous inten-

tions and expectations to harm the target or

organization are present, definitions of incivility

overlap with psychological aggression (e.g.,

Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004). However, incivility

differs from psychological aggression when be-

haviors lack clear, conscious intentionality.

That is, although incivility may occasionally

have visibly injurious objectives, it can often be

attributed to other factors, such as the instiga-

tor’s ignorance, oversight, or personality; intent,

whether present or not, is ambiguous to one or

more of the parties involved (Andersson & Pear-

son, 1999; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001).

However, workplace incivility, by definition, is

completely distinct from physical aggression

and violence (e.g., VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996).

Incivility is perhaps one of the most pervasive

forms of antisocial behavior in the workplace.

To assess incivility prevalence, my colleagues

and I surveyed employees in a range of work

settings; the incidence rates we uncovered illus-

trate the ubiquity of this phenomenon. For ex-

ample, 71 percent of a court employee sample

(Cortina et al., 2001), 75 percent of a university

employee sample (Cortina & Magley, 2007), and

79 percent of a law enforcement sample (Cor-

tina, Lonsway, & Magley, 2004) reported that

they had encountered some form of uncivil con-

duct at work in recent years. Other researchers

have reported similarly high rates of related

workplace behaviors: for example, “generalized

harassment”—75 percent (Einarsen & Raknes,

1997); “generalized workplace harassment”— 64

percent (Rospenda, 2002); and “rude or disre-

spectful treatment”— 67 percent (Neuman, 2004).

The proliferation of incivility in the workplace

has very real, very negative consequences for

employees, workgroups, and organizations.

Barling and colleagues (Barling et al., 1996;

Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001) have theo-

rized that experiences of abusive behaviors at

work lead to negative mood, cognitive distrac-

tion, fear, and perceived injustice. Others (e.g.,

Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001;

Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004) have added dam-

aged social identity and anger to this list. These

cognitive and affective reactions, in turn, ad-

versely influence targets’ occupational, psycho-

logical, and physical health. Some have

proposed that these negative consequences ex-

tend beyond the targeted employee to affect by-

standers, workgroups, and whole organizations

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Miner-Rubino &

Cortina, 2004).

Data are emerging to support theories that

although incivility may be subtle, its effects are

not. Empirical research suggests that employees

targeted with uncivil behavior experience

greater job stress and dissatisfaction, lower cre-

ativity, cognitive distraction, and psychological

distress. Possibly in an attempt to dampen the

increased stressfulness of work, targets also use

more substances. Moreover, incivility disrupts

employee relationships and derails cooperation,

rending the social fabric of the workgroup. Per-

sonnel targeted with pervasive incivility ulti-

mately lose commitment to their organizations

and exit at higher rates (Cortina et al., 2001, 2002;

Lim & Cortina, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, &

Porath, 2000; Pearson et al., 2001; Pearson &

Porath, 2004; Richman et al., 1999; Rospenda,

2002). Even employees who merely observe un-

56 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

civil treatment (e.g., toward colleagues) show

lower job satisfaction and commitment and

greater job burnout and turnover intentions;

such observer effects emerge even while con-

trolling for negative affectivity, so they cannot

be attributed to a negative dispositional stance

making observers more attuned to negative

stimuli in their environments (Miner-Rubino &

Cortina, 2006). These adverse individual and

collective consequences have financial implica-

tions for employers, who must absorb the costs

of employee distraction and discontentment, job

accidents, substance abuse, sick leave, work

team conflict, productivity decline, and turnover.

Explaining how such a “low-grade” phenome-

non as incivility can have such widespread con-

sequences, my colleagues and I (Cortina & Mag-

ley, 2004; Cortina et al., 2001) have asserted that

many uncivil work behaviors fall into the category

of daily hassles—that is, routine nuisances of ev-

eryday life (e.g., Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman,

1984). Daily hassles lack the drama and intensity

of major life events. Nevertheless, chronic, low-key

stressors that repeat over time can “wear down”

an individual, both psychologically and physi-

cally (e.g., Wheaton, 1997). Moreover, targeted em-

ployees may have difficulty developing effective

means of coping with and controlling such ambig-

uous phenomena. Hopelessness and resignation

may result (Deitch et al., 2004). Following Richman

and colleagues’ (1996; Rospenda, 2002) reasoning,

personnel might also find interpersonal hostility

highly unexpected and unnecessary in the work

environment (in contrast to task-based stressors,

which might seem more routine and therefore

more tolerable in that context). For all of these

reasons, daily interpersonal stressors at work can

accumulate to have a greater impact on psycho-

logical and health outcomes than major time-

limited disturbances (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2004;

Cortina et al., 2001; Deitch et al., 2004; Lazarus,

1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

In sum, prior research has laid important foun-

dations in defining incivility, delineating its im-

pact, and articulating its relationship to other cat-

egories of generalized hostility in the workplace.

Questions remain about how incivility relates to

specific forms of workplace mistreatment, such as

that based on sex and race.

Incivility, sexual ha-

rassment, and racial harassment share certain

features, all entailing behaving in an antisocial

way; degrading, offending, or intimidating tar-

gets; and violating standards of interpersonal re-

spect. In addition, similar motivations may drive

these different forms of abuse, such as instigators’

pursuit of social power/dominance, disregard for

authority and norms, desire for valued resources,

self-presentational goals, and value differences

with the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;

Buchanan, 2005; Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Deitch et

al., 2004; James, Lovato, & Khoo, 1994; Lim & Cor-

tina, 2005; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000;

Pearson & Porath, 2004; Sanchez & Brock, 1996;

Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000; Thacker

& Ferris, 1991).

In addition, perhaps incivility, sexual harass-

ment, and racial harassment are, at times, one

and the same. This may seem illogical, given

that incivility is facially neutral by definition.

That is, “generally” uncivil behaviors have no

overt reference to gender, race, or other social

category. This nevertheless does not rule out the

possibility that incivility sometimes represents

covert manifestations of gender and racial bias

in the workplace. The theory advanced in this

article will elucidate this possibility. Such selec-

tive incivility could be one mechanism by which

gender and racial disparities persist in organi-

zations, despite concerted legislative, judicial,

and organizational efforts to eradicate bias.

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON

DISCRIMINATION

The last four decades have seen sweeping

changes in antidiscrimination laws, practices,

and ideologies in the United States. Owing to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and re-

lated reforms, blatant employment discrimina-

tion based on gender and race (among other

factors) has become illegal. Women and people

of color now enjoy much greater access to occu-

pational and economic opportunities than in the

past. Along with these tangible changes, atti-

tudes toward women’s paid employment, and

white attitudes toward ethnic minorities, have

become more positive, tolerant, and accepting.

Of course, workplace mistreatment can be based on

other social dimensions as well, such as sexual orientation,

age, disability status, and so on. The theory elaborated in

this paper focuses primarily on gender and race; however,

similar arguments could be developed for other character-

istics that divide and stigmatize individuals.

2008 57Cortina

Public expression of sexist and racist beliefs

has undergone a radical decline (Benokraitis,

1997; Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief et al., 1997, 2000;

Brief & Hayes, 1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004;

Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaertner, &

Bachman, 2001; Operario & Fiske, 1998; Swim,

Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995; Tougas, Brown,

Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The importance of these

changes cannot be overstated.

In spite of progress, gender and racial dispar-

ities endure in American organizations, particu-

larly at the highest levels, where power is most

concentrated (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997; Brief et al.,

1997; Brief & Hayes, 1997; Pettigrew & Martin,

1987; Valian, 1998). This is true across a range of

industries, from the military to the federal gov-

ernment to the Fortune 500 (Dovidio, Gaertner, &

Bachman, 2001). According to Census and De-

partment of Labor statistics, women and ethnic/

racial minorities still receive less pay, face

greater unemployment, and work in lower-

status jobs than their white male counterparts;

this remains true even after controlling for edu-

cation, experience, and skill level (Brief et al.,

1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In 2002 the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) received 84,442 complaints of employ-

ment discrimination; two out of every three al-

legations were based on either gender or race

(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-

sion, 2003). Illustrating the striking persistence

of these forms of bias, Benokraitis (1997) noted

that, in the mid 1990s, white men constituted

one-third of the U.S. population. At the same

time, they made up “85% of tenured professors,

85% of partners in law firms, 80% of the U.S.

House of Representatives, 90% of the U.S. Sen-

ate, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs...and100% of all

US presidents” (1997: 5).

One might wonder how discrimination could

be so robust against several decades of legal,

organizational, and attitudinal reform. Some

suggest that these changes may have been ef-

fective in reducing blatant or “old-fashioned”

discrimination, but subtle discrimination lives

on in the world of work (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997;

Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief, Buttram, Elliott,

Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995; Deitch et al., 2004;

Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In fact, contempo-

rary antifemale and antiminority bias is some-

times so ambiguous that instigators are un-

aware of its discriminatory nature, and they

typically have rational, nondiscriminatory ex-

planations for their conduct. As Dipboye and

Halverson explain, “Much of today’s discrimina-

tion takes a more subtle form and has slipped

out of the light into the dark side of the organi-

zation” (2004: 132).

The ambiguity inherent in subtle discrimina-

tion makes it particularly difficult for targets

and managers to recognize, much less control.

Meyerson and Fletcher compellingly summarize

this situation as it relates to gender:

As we enter the year 2000, the glass ceiling re-

mains. What will it take to finally shatter it? Not

a revolution . . . the women’s movement [once]

used radical rhetoric and legal action to drive out

overt discrimination, but most of the barriers that

persist today are insidious—a revolution couldn’t

find them to blast away. Rather, gender discrim-

ination now is so deeply embedded in organiza-

tional life as to be virtually indiscernible. Even

the women who feel its impact are often hard-

pressed to know what hit them (2000: 127).

Similar arguments can be made for persistent

but subtle racial bias in the workplace. The

glass ceiling holds strong in contemporary or-

ganizations, impeding women and employees of

color from advancing to the same levels and at

the same rates as their white male contempo-

raries. Moreover, “glass walls” keep women and

minorities confined to certain occupational cat-

egories (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Rowe, 1990). These

concealed barriers likely take many forms, one

of which may be selective incivility. Theories of

modern discrimination explain how and why

this might be the case.

To account for persistent gender and racial

inequalities in the United States, social psychol-

ogists have identified various forms of modern

discrimination. In the realm of race relations,

these concepts include aversive racism (Dovidio

& Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), sym-

bolic racism (Sears, 1988, 1998), and modern rac-

ism (Brief et al., 2000; McConahay, 1986; Mc-

Conahay & Hough, 1976). The gender bias

literature refers to similar phenomena, such as

modern sexism (Swim, Scott, Sechrist, Campbell,

& Stangor, 1995), neosexism (Tougas et al., 1995),

and contemporary sexism (Jackson, Esses, &

Burris, 2001). Although each conceptualization of

contemporary discrimination is slightly differ-

ent, the mythologies behind the behaviors are

well-represented by McConahay’s depiction of

modern racism against blacks:

The principal tenets of modern racism are these:

(1) Discrimination is a thing of the past because

58 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Blacks now have the freedom to compete in the

marketplace and to enjoy those things they can

afford. (2) Blacks are pushing too hard, too fast,

and into places where they are not wanted. (3)

These tactics and demands are unfair. (4) There-

fore, recent gains are undeserved and the pres-

tige granting institutions of society are giving

Blacks more attention and the concomitant status

than they deserve (1986: 92–93).

Modern racists see these views as empirical

fact rather than opinion or racist ideology. In

fact, they ostensibly endorse egalitarian values,

publicly condemn racism, and strongly identify

themselves as nonprejudiced. This explicit re-

jection of overt bias— combined with implicit

antiminority (or antifemale) beliefs—yields sub-

tle, often unintentional and unconscious forms

of discrimination. However, to maintain an egal-

itarian identity, modern racists only engage in

discrimination when there is a plausible, non-

racial (or nongendered) explanation for the dif-

ferential treatment—for instance, a business

justification. Absent a reasonable, nonpreju-

diced rationale for disparate conduct, discrimi-

nation does not manifest (Brief et al., 1995, 1997,

2000; James, Brief, Dietz, & Cohen, 2001; Mc-

Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976). This

allows the would-be instigators to protect them-

selves from charges of racism.

Contemporary forms of bias are distinct from

“old-fashioned” sexism and racism, character-

ized by blatant antipathy, beliefs that women

and people of color are inherently inferior, en-

dorsement of pejorative stereotypes, and sup-

port for open acts of discrimination. Such anti-

quated beliefs and overtly discriminatory

conduct are becoming less and less common

(Brief et al., 1997; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Mc-

Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976;

Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995; Tougas et al.,

1995). For this reason, scholars are beginning to

recognize that

singular attention to major discriminatory acts in

the workplace is insufficient for explaining the

experience of discrimination many minority

members experience on the job, and may be an

increasingly inadequate research focus in the fu-

ture as the social and political landscape shifts

toward newer forms of racism and discrimination

(Deitch et al., 2003: 1300 –1301).

Different theories have emerged about the de-

velopmental history of modern discrimination.

One is that this “second-generation” form of

bias has recently arisen to replace old-fash-

ioned sexism and racism, now deemed undesir-

able and, at times, unlawful (Benokraitis & Fea-

gin, 1995; Brief et al., 1997; Forbes, Adams-Curtis,

& White, 2004; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Tougas

et al., 1995). A second argument is that prejudice

has had a long history in our society, persisting

over time i n different manifestations, as affected

by each sociohistorical moment. An elaborated

version of this hypothesis is that negative atti-

tudes toward women and ethnic minorities have

continued despite social pressure to renounce

prejudice; rather than going away, the negative

attitudes become stored in memory and change

from explicit to implicit (Dovidio, Gaertner,

Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002). A final possibility is

that subtle, unintentional, unconscious forms of

discrimination are not new; what may be new is

their visibility, now that blatant discrimination

no longer overshadows them. Regardless of

their developmental trajectory, prejudice and

discrimination seem to be alive and well in the

contemporary American workplace.

Research has identified various factors that

fuel discrimination, including cognition, affect,

and the organizational and societal context.

Some of these same driving forces could also

underlie discriminatory forms of workplace in-

civility, so here I highlight studies of each cate-

gory of antecedent. The resulting model follows

recent multilevel trends in the organizational

sciences (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), attend-

ing to influences at the level of the individual,

the organization, and society. The review below

is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaus-

tive—to demonstrate how scholarship on bias

and discrimination can inform science and prac-

tice related to incivility in organizations. Figure

1 displays a conceptual model of the ideas that

follow.

Person-Level Explanations

Research on modern discrimination has pri-

marily attended to intraindividual cognitive and

affective events that drive a person to discrimi-

nate.

Cognition. Theories of social cognition lie at

the heart of the literature on modern discrimina-

tion, which focuses in particular on categoriza-

tion and stereotyping. Social categorization re-

fers to the cognitive process by which our minds

place people into social categories based on

salient cues, such as gender, race, and age. This

2008 59Cortina

is argued to be a natural, automatic, and often

unconscious process. This process has various

benefits: easing the cognitive burden, simplify-

ing perception and judgment, and helping us

make sense of an intricate social environment.

Without social categorization, the complexity of

person perception would be overwhelming (e.g.,

Devine & Monteith, 1999; Dovidio, Gaertner, &

Bachman, 2001; Fiske, 2000; Jones, 2002; Operario

& Fiske, 1998; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992).

Categorization of a person into a particular

group often triggers stereotypes—that is, preva-

lent and overgeneralized knowledge, beliefs,

and expectancies about members of that social

category (e.g., Hilton & von Hipple, 1996; Jones,

2002; Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Stone et al., 1992).

In short, stereotypes are the “cultural baggage”

that social categories carry (Operario & Fiske,

1998: 40). They allow perceivers to understand

(often inaccurately) and make predictions about

others, averting the onerous task of learning

in-depth details about each individual encoun-

tered. Indeed, we tend not to seek further per-

sonal information after placing someone into a

social category, instead basing impression for-

mation largely on stereotypes associated with

that category (e.g., Operario & Fiske, 1998; Stone

et al., 1992).

Stereotypes come in explicit and implicit va-

rieties. Explicit stereotypes operate at the con-

scious level and occur with intention, effort,

awareness, and control. Attitudes and stereo-

types can also be implicit, however, occurring

unintentionally, unconsciously, and effortlessly

(e.g., Banaji & Dasgupta, 1998; Baron & Banaji,

2006; Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith, 1999;

Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Jones, 2002; Valian,

1998). The implicit variant of stereotyping is par-

ticularly implicated in modern discrimination.

That is, a modern sexist or racist unknowingly

applies negative stereotypes to women and peo-

ple of color, which can lead the stereotyper to

mistreat members of these social groups. How-

ever, the mistreatment only arises in situations

when there is a plausible, nonprejudiced expla-

nation for the behavior so that the instigator can

maintain a nondiscriminatory self-image.

Stereotypes of outgroup members can also be

“ambivalent,” containing both positive and neg-

ative elements. That is, they need not reflect

uniform antipathy or contempt. Across years of

stereotyping research (e.g., Allport, 1954; Fiske,

Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999,

2001), scholars have identified two core stereo-

type dimensions: warmth and competence.

Some groups are the object of benevolent or

paternalistic stereotypes, being perceived as

warm but generally incompetent; these include

housewives, the elderly, and the disabled. Oth-

ers, in contrast, are seen as low in warmth but

FIGURE 1

Integrated Model of Incivility As Modern Discrimination in Organizations

60 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

(overly) high in competence, so they are targeted

with a more hostile, envious stereotype; these

groups include black professionals, career

women, and Asians. Hostility toward these “en-

vied” outgroups becomes amplified when they

achieve success, status, and power, posing a

competitive threat to the ingroup.

Affect. Some scholars claim that, compared to

stereotypic cognition, prejudice is the better pre-

dictor of discriminatory behavior (Fiske, 2000).

Prejudice refers specifically to an affective reac-

tion to people solely because of their member-

ship in a specific social category. Particularly

relevant are the categories of ingroup and out-

group. That is, social categorization processes

lead all people to categorize others as “one of

us” versus “one of them.” This gives rise to pos-

itive affective biases toward ingroup members,

coupled with negative feelings toward individ-

uals in the outgroup (Fiske, 2002; Jones, 2002;

Operario & Fiske, 1998).

The negative affect toward the outgroup can

take different forms, not simply amounting to a

homogeneous feeling of contempt. For example,

research by Fiske and colleagues (2002) has

shown that people tend to feel “paternalistic

prejudice” toward groups stereotyped as warm

but incompetent; this prejudice entails a strong

sense of pity, without admiration or envy.

Groups stereotyped as cold but competent con-

jure up the opposite emotional profile: envy and

admiration, but little pity. Regarding these lat-

ter findings, Fiske et al. wrote that “admiration

for high-competence out-groups . . . coexisted

with envy, suggesting a volatile mix of emotions

that could create hostility when groups feel

threatened” (2002: 897).

Diffuse, unconscious antifemale and antimi-

nority feelings are thought to underlie modern

discrimination (McConahay, 1986; McConahay &

Hough, 1976; Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995;

Tougas et al., 1995). Dovidio, Gaertner, and

Bachman (2001) have emphasized the subtlety of

these negative emotions in aversive racists, who

experience mild fear, disgust, uneasiness, and

indifference when they encounter ethnic minor-

ities. This contrasts with “the open flame of ra-

cial hatred” that fuels traditional racism (2001:

419). In addition, Jackson and colleagues (2001:

49) have shown that an important component of

contemporary sexism is greater feelings of es-

teem (i.e., respect) for men than women—a dif-

ferential, affective “gut reaction” to social

groups. Because this visceral response toward

members of particular social groups is outside

conscious awareness and control, modern sex-

ists and racists can maintain a nonprejudiced

self-concept.

Situational Explanations

A complete understanding of workplace dis-

crimination requires attention to the surround-

ing context—at the level of both the immediate

organization and the larger society. These con-

texts provide the proximal and distal backdrops

of discriminatory cognitions, emotions, and be-

haviors in the workplace. The shaded, concen-

tric ovals surrounding the model in Figure 1

convey the pervasive influence of context on all

aspects of this process. In social psychological

research on modern discrimination, scholars

have, to some extent, discussed the societal con-

text, so this review of situational factors begins

there. Next will come the workplace context,

which is discussed more in the organizational

sciences.

Societal context. All organizations operate

within a larger society/culture, which certainly

affects the unfolding of discrimination. Histori-

cally speaking, racism and sexism have a long

tradition in American history, and people tend to

internalize the values and beliefs of their cul-

ture. Not long ago in this country, women were

denied the right to vote, own property, and ma-

triculate in many institutions of higher educa-

tion; employers could openly fire or refuse to

hire women solely on the basis of their gender.

Likewise, “the periods of slavery and Jim Crow

forced African Americans, unlike any other eth-

nic group, into a legalized second-class citizen-

ship for over 300 years” (Sears, 1998: 79). Other

U.S. ethnic minority groups have also encoun-

tered oppression in policies of mass internment,

forced expulsion from their homelands, discrim-

inatory immigration practices, and antimiscege-

nation laws (Operario & Fiske, 1998).

Although many of these overt discriminatory

practices have since been abandoned, the struc-

ture of society remains such that men and

whites tend to occupy different social roles than

women (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly & Wood,

1999) and ethnic minorities (Dovidio, Gaertner, &

Bachman, 2001; Sears, 1998), which helps to sus-

tain stereotypes. Moreover, people growing up

in the United States still encounter stereotypic

2008 61Cortina

imagery in cartoons, books, films, and other cul-

tural media (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Fiske, 2002;

Operario & Fiske, 1998). This social heritage

maintains prejudice against women and people

of color. It also follows individuals into their

places of work: “Employees come to the organi-

zation with heavy cultural and social baggage

obtained from interactions in other social con-

texts” (Scott, 1992: 20).

The structure of society also perpetuates un-

equal distributions of power, and asymmetrical

power combined with prejudice sets the stage

for oppression. Powerful people often seek to

preserve the status quo in order to bolster their

own status, maintain access to valued re-

sources, and increase personal and collective

self-esteem (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman,

2001; Fiske, 1993, 2000, 2001, 2002; Jones, 2002;

Operario & Fiske, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Power also gives individuals at the top of the

social structure the tools to translate their bi-

ases into discriminatory conduct. With respect

to race, Operario and Fiske argue that “preju-

dice alone does not determine racism; everyone

has prejudices, because all people prefer their

group over others. History and society confer

power to certain groups, granting them exces-

sive ability to exercise their prejudice” (1998: 49).

In contrast, powerlessness necessitates depen-

dence on and acquiescence to the demands of

the powerful (Fiske, 1993; Jones, 2002; Operario &

Fiske, 1998). These social structural forces pro-

vide prime conditions for discrimination to

thrive, in ways both blatant and subtle.

Organizational context. Turning now to the

more immediate context, the organizational en-

vironment should play an important role in ei-

ther enabling or inhibiting discrimination. It is

also a level of context that seems particularly

malleable—more so than the social structural

context, given the difficulties inherent in effect-

ing change at the broad societal level. However,

social psychologists have largely ignored the

workplace in studies of modern discrimination.

The focus of this review therefore now switches

to field research in organizational psychology.

This literature suggests that several features of

the work environment are especially relevant to

discrimination: policy, leadership, and group

norms.

Many U.S. organizations presently have poli-

cies that reflect Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964—protecting certain classes of employees

(including women and personnel of color) from

discrimination or harassment based on social

category membership. Numerous scholars, how-

ever, emphasize that a good policy is necessary

but not sufficient to inhibit discriminatory and

antisocial work behavior; consistent enforce-

ment of that policy is paramount (e.g., O’Leary-

Kelly et al., 2000; Riger, 1991; Williams, Fitzger-

ald, & Drasgow, 1999). To implement policies

effectively, strong leaders must be present.

Leaders set the tone for the entire organiza-

tion, and employees look to them for cues about

what constitutes acceptable conduct. Organiza-

tions tend to have fewer problems with (blatant)

discrimination when their authority figures es-

tablish clear expectations for respectful behav-

ior, model nondiscriminatory values and con-

duct, take discrimination complaints seriously,

and sanction those who discriminate. Argu-

ments and evidence supporting this claim have

emerged particularly in studies of sexual ha-

rassment (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gel-

fand, & Magley, 1997; Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Dras-

gow, 1996; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000; Pryor,

Giedd, & Williams, 1995; Williams et al., 1999). In

a similar vein, organizational authorities can

send messages to employees that either pro-

mote or inhibit racial discrimination (Brief et al.,

1995, 1997, 2000).

Another feature of the organizational context

that can influence discrimination is its local so-

cial norms (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). The

need for belonging and acceptance by ingroup

members is a powerful motivator for human be-

havior (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fiske,

2000), including organizational behavior (Wil-

liams, 1998; Williams & Sommer, 1997). In fact,

personnel often work in groups or teams, facing

pressure to conform to group norms. Even with-

out a formal “team” structure, many organiza-

tions foster a psychological sense of community,

and informal social norms arise (Heller, 1989;

Pretty & MacCarthy, 1991; Sarason, 1974). Group

norms “not only define reality for group mem-

bers but also communicate how members can

obtain the approval and avoid the criticisms of

fellow group members” (Dipboye & Halverson,

2004: 145). As a result of these group processes,

people adapt their cognitions, emotions, and be-

haviors to fit better into the social world of work.

Thus, when coworkers convey expectations for

or model biased behavior, an employee is more

likely to follow suit and engage in discrimina-

62 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

tion (Brief et al., 2000; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly,

1998).

Person-Situation Interactional Explanations

With a few exceptions, the organizational con-

text literature reviewed above focuses primarily

on overt discrimination. Drawing on Dipboye

and Halverson’s (2004) reasoning, we find that

the picture becomes more complicated when we

consider how the organizational environment

might influence covert discrimination. The orga-

nization’s implicit or explicit support for dis-

crimination (as indicated by lax enforcement or

absence of a nondiscrimination policy, permis-

sive leader behavior, and sexist or racist norms)

could create an immediate social context that

promotes discriminatory conduct. However, em-

ployees bring their own personal convictions

and affective tendencies to that context. The re-

sult is a person-by-situation interaction that de-

termines whether or not discriminatory behavior

occurs and, if it does, whether it is overt versus

covert and implicit versus explicit. Figure 2 sum-

marizes how person and situation factors jointly

influence discriminatory behavior.

As Figure 2 demonstrates, when we cross the

organizational context and individual tenden-

cies, (at least) four different behavioral possibil-

ities emerge. The lower left quadrant represents

the ideal situation: a nonbiased individual

works for an organization that, likewise, does

not permit biased conduct; that employee will

likely not discriminate against women and mi-

norities. Even if the employee unconsciously

endorses negative beliefs or feelings toward

female or minority coworkers, a strong antidis-

criminatory context should prevent that per-

son from acting on his or her implicit biases

(Brief et al., 2000).

The opposite situation appears in the upper

right quadrant: when a biased employee works

for a bias-tolerant company, the likelihood of

overt discrimination (e.g., sexual and racial ha-

rassment) is high. This employee may be fully

aware of and open about the biased nature of

his or her conduct, and the organization does not

motivate the individual to restrain his or her

prejudices.

Note that in both of these situations the indi-

vidual’s approach (pro or con) to bias is in line

with that of the organizational environment. A

different picture emerges in the case of individ-

uals whose feelings and beliefs about discrimi-

nation are in conflict with those advanced by

the organization (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004).

This disconnect fosters ideal conditions for co-

vert discrimination.

The lower right quadrant of Figure 2 portrays

a situation in which a biased employee works

for an organization that deters discriminatory

conduct. Motivation to avoid sanctions, to re-

main in the organization, and to fit in with the

workgroup could inhibit the employee from ex-

FIGURE 2

Person-by-Organization Influences on Discriminatory Behavior

2008 63Cortina

pressing visible bias (i.e., no blatant sexual or

racial harassment). However, these organization-

al influences might only drive discrimination

“underground.” In other words, in lieu of open,

overt acts of hostility, the employee may express

personal biases against female coworkers and

colleagues of color covertly (Dipboye & Halver-

son, 2004). Concealing discrimination in this

way could be a conscious choice on the part of

the employee.

The upper left quadrant applies to two differ-

ent types of employees, although the behavioral

outcome is the same. In one situation an em-

ployee with no implicit or explicit biases

against women and minorities works for an or-

ganization in which there is pressure (e.g., from

peers) to engage in sexist or racist behavior.

Assuming that the employee is motivated to re-

main with the organization (e.g., for financial or

professional reasons), the conflict between the

individual and the immediate context may yield

discrimination that is quite subtle. That is, the

person is ideologically opposed to sexism and

racism and therefore unlikely to engage know-

ingly in overtly discriminatory behavior. This

person, however, spends forty (or more) hours

per week working in an antifemale and/or anti-

minority climate. His or her fundamental need

for belonging, acceptance, and security could

foster covert discrimination against women

and/or colleagues of color, as a means of “fitting

in” in the discriminatory environment. The bi-

ased conduct would need to be subtle and ra-

tionalizable, and perhaps even unconscious, for

the employee to maintain an unbiased self-

image.

A second possibility for the upper left quad-

rant is that an employee self-identifies as non-

prejudiced but implicitly harbors negative

thoughts and feelings toward women or people

of color. This person also works in a context that

is in some way antifemale or antiminority. This

environment permits and perhaps even encour-

ages the employee to act on implicit biases, but

explicit discrimination (e.g., sexual or racial ha-

rassment) would be aversive to his or her egal-

itarian identity. Instead of overtly discriminat-

ing against undervalued social groups, the

employee could disproportionately target them

with negative behavior that is too subtle and

facially neutral to appear biased. This antiso-

cial conduct would be a concealed, uninten-

tional, unconscious form of discrimination (Dip-

boye & Halverson, 2004).

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AS MODERN

DISCRIMINATION

How might social psychological concepts of

modern/covert/aversive discrimination inform

our understanding of incivility in the work-

place? These theories suggest different paths to

selective incivility. In one case reasonable, for-

ward-thinking, tolerant employees unknowingly

target women and minorities with dispropor-

tionate incivility, despite being explicitly op-

posed to sexism and racism. That is, the employ-

ees’ implicitly stereotypic attitudes, preference

for ingroup members, motivation to maintain so-

cial power, and so forth could give rise to subtle

biases against the outgroup. Lax antidiscrimi-

nation policies, permissive leadership behavior,

and antisocial models in the workplace could

set the stage for employees to act on those bi-

ases. Cultural traditions of sexism, racism, and

asymmetrical power compound the situation.

These instigators might have plausible, nonra-

cial, and nongendered explanations for the un-

civil conduct (e.g., “I didn’t see you,” “I’m having

a bad day,” “I thought you were done speak-

ing”)—explanations that they themselves be-

lieve.

In other cases selective incivility might not be

so innocent, because “some people may be par-

ticularly motivated to think in stereotypic ways

and may use controlled processing to promote

stereotype use” (Devine & Monteith, 1999: 356,

note 1). For example, an employee may con-

sciously experience blatant antipathy toward

women and minorities and make no attempt to

prevent it from influencing his or her behavior

toward coworkers, but may hide prejudice be-

hind the guise of “general” incivility. This at-

tempt at concealment may be particularly likely

if a biased employee works in an organization

with strong nondiscrimination policies and

norms, enforced by strong leaders. Overt disre-

spect (e.g., harassment) of women and minori-

ties would not be tolerated in such a context, so

the employee must find more discreet and ra-

tionalizable methods of expressing bias; selec-

tive incivility is one means toward this end. That

is, bias may emerge in the form of low-level

deviance that, absent any overtly sexist or racist

content, can be attributed to something less ob-

64 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

jectionable than prejudice (e.g., instigator over-

sight, personality, work overload). In this exam-

ple the employee can explain the conduct in a

way that has nothing to do with gender or race,

but this would be a deceitful “cover-up” for bias.

A third scenario could be that an employee

has strong egalitarian values, both explicit and

implicit, but works alongside coworkers who ex-

press sexism and racism on a regular basis. The

employee is caught in a quandary: not going

along with the biased conduct could lead to

ostracism from the peer group, which constitutes

a significant part of the employee’s social world,

but participating in blatantly biased behavior

would be antithetical to the employee’s values

and, thus, highly aversive. One means of solv-

ing this dilemma would be to target women and

people of color with subtle disrespect—that is,

incivility. The discriminatory nature of this con-

duct would fit in with group norms, and the

low-level (possibly unconscious) nature of the

deviance might be tolerable for the instigator,

who prides him or herself on being nonsexist

and nonracist.

Given the theories and scenarios reviewed

above, I propose that incivility is not always an

“equal opportunity” form of antisocial work be-

havior. Specifically, in many organizations

women and ethnic minority employees likely

experience more uncivil treatment than men

and whites. This should be especially true for

organizations that lack strong nondiscrimina-

tion policies, have leaders who turn a blind eye

to (or even model) antifemale and antiminority

conduct, and employ individuals who openly ex-

press bias.

In many cases disproportionate incivility to-

ward women and people of color would likely

comprise the most ambiguous forms of disre-

spectful conduct (e.g., interrupting an employee,

failing to include an employee in professional

camaraderie, ignoring an employee). These sub-

tle behaviors could be attributed to many factors

other than race or gender (e.g., instigator over-

sight, target hypersensitivity), making it partic-

ularly difficult to label them as discriminatory.

They are thus means by which personnel can

mistreat women and people of color while main-

taining a nonprejudiced image to themselves

and others. The apparent neutrality of this be-

havior could avert disciplinary actions related

to Title VII violation.

It could be, however, that more transparent

forms of incivility (e.g., rumor spreading, accu-

sations of incompetence, anger outbursts) would

not show intergroup differences. These behav-

iors, when targeted at female and minority em-

ployees disproportionately, might be perceived

as sexist or racist, which would be aversive to

the instigator’s egalitarian self-concept. This

might also trigger organizational or legal sanc-

tions. Therefore, it makes sense that many insti-

gators (those who want to avoid penalties or

labels as sexist/racist) would refrain from bla-

tant forms of discriminatory disrespect.

This profile of findings would be highly con-

sistent with modern understandings of discrim-

ination. For example, aversive racism theory

(e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaert-

ner, & Bachman, 2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Nie-

mann, & Snider, 2001) suggests that discrimina-

tion will not emerge in situations where the

discriminatory nature of the conduct is appar-

ent, either to the instigator or others. This is

because “aversive racists” consciously endorse

values of egalitarianism and justice and con-

demn prejudice both internally and externally.

However, these same individuals implicitly har-

bor negative emotions and cognitions toward

minorities, driving them to discriminate in sub-

tle or rationalizable ways. That is, they discrim-

inate (1) when the biased nature of the behavior

is not obvious or (2) when a negative response

can be attributed to something other than race.

Both of these descriptions fit many manifesta-

tions of workplace incivility.

From the target’s perspective, who would be

most at risk for selective incivility? According to

theories of ambivalent stereotyping (e.g., Fiske

et al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001) and inter-

group competition (e.g., Jackman, 1994), the most

vulnerable might be professionally and eco-

nomically successful women and minorities—

those who are perceived as highly competent

and advancing in ways that threaten the domi-

nant majority. This is based on research show-

ing that successful outgroups, such as black pro-

fessionals, Asians, career women, business

women, and feminists, are often stereotyped as

(too) competent, ambitious, and hardworking

and, at the same time, interpersonally unpleas-

ant and cold. This can trigger admiration to

some extent, but also envy and hostile competi-

tion from the dominant majority. Again, though,

to avoid appearances of racism and sexism, the

2008 65Cortina

hostility may often take a disguised form, such

as selective incivility.

EVIDENCE FROM THE TARGET’S

PERSPECTIVE

The theories reviewed above explain forces

that may promote incivility as a covert form of

modern discrimination against undervalued so-

cial groups. But is there any empirical evidence

to this effect? With workplace incivility being a

new area of inquiry, the empirical record on this

topic remains limited. Several studies do, how-

ever, suggest that gender bias may underlie

some manifestations of incivility. Fewer data

are available on race and incivility, but findings

from one study do suggest potential racial bias.

Starting first with incivility as subtle sexism,

qualitative data suggest that incivility and gen-

der bias are often one and the same. Specifi-

cally, my colleagues and I (Cortina et al., 2002)

examined the interpersonal experiences of 4,608

attorneys practicing in the federal courts. Re-

spondents who had indicated any recent en-

counter with workplace incivility were asked to

provide brief descriptions of the uncivil conduct

that had had the greatest impact on them. Many

women detailed experiences of incivility that

they attributed to gender, despite the mistreat-

ment not being explicitly gendered on its face.

Some of the behaviors described represented

more overt, active, direct forms of disrespect:

Male judges and attorneys tend to cut short, ig-

nore, or exclude female attorneys.

There is still a big gap in how women attorneys

are treated by male attorneys: extremely aggres-

sive behavior in depositions; failure to listen; re-

peated interruptions in all contexts.

A court clerk apparently did not believe that I

was an attorney even though I had been sitting at

counsel table for two weeks of the trial. He

treated me rudely and kept me from getting ex-

hibits in order in a document-intensive case. I

believe this occurred because I am a young-

looking female.

More often, though, the disproportionately un-

civil treatment of women was more subtle, indi-

rect, and perhaps unintentional and uncon-

scious:

I was plaintiff’s counsel on a motion, but the

magistrate spoke exclusively to the male defense

counsel and deferred to him throughout the in-

chamber hearing. Magistrate treated me like I

wasn’t in the room.

The person in charge of the settlement program

. . . refused to speak to me in that conference, and

would only address my male co-counsel, even

though I had identified myself as lead counsel.

The bankruptcy bar...israther small and exclu-

sive. To be young and female is to be discounted

and ignored and makes it very difficult to estab-

lish yourself. I hated my first 5 years of practice

because of it. Good thing I’m tough.

These previously unpublished quotes illustrate

how incivility can represent gender discrimina-

tion (and sometimes age discrimination) of a

less blatant type. The last examples are consis-

tent with the form of bias that Fiske (2002: 125)

calls “cool neglect,” or withholding “basic liking

and respect” rather than being openly hostile.

The Cortina et al. (2002) study is particularly

well-suited to testing the theory articulated

above. The participants were female attorneys,

who would elicit the “career woman” (and some-

times “feminist”) stereotype, which includes

high competence but low warmth (e.g., Fiske et

al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001). These women

are making inroads into a prestigious profes-

sion that was once exclusively the province of

men. Men, as members of the dominant majori-

ty,

may feel a sense of threat, competition, and

hostility toward these outgroup members who

are “encroaching” on their terrain. In some

cases men could justify uncivil behavior as part

of their job, which mandates “zealous advocacy”

for clients. Note, however, that opposing counsel

were not the only instigators of incivility in

these narratives, since the rude behavior also

came from judges, court clerks, and other court

personnel. Behavior from these various sources

cannot be attributed to trial strategy or the ad-

versarial model of justice.

Corroborating these qualitative findings,

quantitative research also suggests gender dif-

ferences in the experience of incivility. Specifi-

cally, the Cortina et al. (2002) attorney study also

included a survey, in which more women (65

percent) than men (47 percent) described recent

experiences of “general incivility” in the context

In the year before my colleagues and I (Cortina et al.,

2002) collected our data, only 23 percent of all lawyers na-

tionwide were women (Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task

Force, 1997). Thus, in this profession men clearly remain the

dominant majority.

66 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

of their work. This gender difference echoes the

results of Bjo¨rkqvist, O

sterman, and Hjelt-Ba¨ck

(1994), who reported that 55 percent of female

compared to 30 percent of male university em-

ployees had faced “work harassment” during

the previous six months. Likewise, in a survey

(Cortina et al., 2001) of 1,180 court employees,

women described greater frequencies of incivil-

ity than did their male colleagues.

The gender differences just reported were

based on composite measures of workplace in-

civility, making it difficult to pinpoint which

types of incivility are more prone to being dis-

criminatory. Extending these findings, my col-

leagues and I (Cortina et al., 2004) have provided

in-depth evidence of both gender- and race-

based disparities in the experience of specific

uncivil behaviors. Our results were based on

survey data from two organizations: (1) a city

government in which women have a strong

presence and (2) a law enforcement agency that

employs sizable numbers of ethnic minorities.

With some exceptions, women and ethnic minor-

ities reported more frequent encounters with

specific uncivil behaviors at work, compared re-

spectively to men and whites. Gender and racial

differences were particularly large for the most

ambiguous behaviors (e.g., “ignored you or

failed to speak to you [e.g., ‘the silent treat-

ment‘],” “doubted your judgment on a matter

over which you had responsibility,” “withheld

information that you needed to do your job cor-

rectly,” “failed to give you an award or recogni-

tion you deserved”). Many of these ambiguous

and “withholding” behaviors could be attrib-

uted to instigator oversight or target hypersen-

sitivity, making it difficult to label them as prej-

udiced. These behaviors are thus means by

which employees may disproportionately tar-

get women and minorities with disrespect

while maintaining a nonprejudiced self-

image.

In contrast, we (Cortina et al., 2004) did not

find gender or racial differences in the experi-

ence of more blatant or overtly disrespectful be-

havior (e.g., “made jokes at your expense,” “re-

fused to work with you,” “targeted you with

anger outbursts or ‘tempter tantrums’”). These

behaviors, when targeted disproportionately at

women and minorities, could be attributed to

prejudice more readily, which could threaten in-

stigators’ self-concept and trigger sanctions

from the employer or court system. Modern rac-

ists and sexists would likely want to avoid such

outcomes.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

These empirical studies support the theory of

selective incivility advanced in this article. The

findings are preliminary, however, elucidating

only half of the incivility equation (the target’s

perspective) and rarely addressing issues of

race. Thus, this theory and this evidence raise

intriguing possibilities, to be addressed in fu-

ture research on workplace intersections of in-

civility, sexism, and racism.

Generally speaking, research related to work-

place incivility could benefit from stronger alli-

ances with social psychology, and vice versa.

Given the richness of social and organizational

scholarship on discrimination, the indepen-

dence of these two bodies of literature is strik-

ing. Both arenas offer novel concepts that could

be mutually informative. They also tend to favor

different paradigms: lab experiments dominate

social psychological research, whereas surveys

are more typical in the organizational sciences.

Research informed by multiple conceptual tra-

ditions, diverse methodologies, and questions of

both basic and applied significance could take

studies of workplace incivility (and other dis-

criminatory behaviors) down interesting new

paths.

A second recommendation is that organiza-

tional researchers of antisocial work behaviors

follow the model set by social, feminist, and

cultural psychology and routinely engage is-

sues of gender and race. This includes studies of

not only incivility but also other forms of “gen-

eral” interpersonal mistreatment: bullying

(Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), aggression

(Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004), interpersonal devi-

ance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), petty tyranny

(Ashforth, 1994), social undermining (Duffy, Gan-

ster, & Pagon, 2002), organizational retaliation

behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and counter-

productive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002).

To date, gender and race (and other social iden-

tities) have been largely absent from this liter-

ature. A few studies, reviewed above, have ad-

dressed gender and incivility, but there has

been little discussion of incivility and race. In-

deed, the neglect of race in the burgeoning lit-

erature on antisocial work behavior has per-

sisted for much too long, perhaps owing to the

2008 67Cortina

fact that “it has become somewhat taboo to rec-

ognize the role of racism in contemporary Amer-

ican work organizations” (Brief & Hayes, 1997:

100). Importantly, this research should not re-

quire targets to have insight into the discrimi-

natory nature of the conduct they face, owing to

the inherent ambiguity of uncivil situations

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and to employees’

reluctance to identify as victims of prejudice

(Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999).

Beyond targets, the perspective of instigators

also deserves further scholarly attention. In fact,

tests of the theory summarized in Figure 1 nec-

essarily imply an instigator focus. This work

will require innovative methods to avoid prob-

lems of socially desirable responding. In partic-

ular, research on aversive racism, neosexism,

and so on shows that individuals responsible for

these “modern” forms of discrimination strongly

identify as nonprejudiced. In other words, they

see their own behavior as reasonable, fair, and

unbiased, so they would not openly admit to

disproportionately targeting female and minor-

ity employees with uncivil conduct. It is there-

fore critical that we develop unobtrusive tech-

niques for assessing selective incivility.

On another front, social psychologists inter-

ested in modern discrimination should consider

the negative interpersonal behaviors discussed

in the organizational literature (e.g., incivility,

aggression, bullying, etc.) as potential behav-

ioral vehicles for subtle sexism and racism. All

of these actions appear, at face value, to have

nothing to do with social categories, stereo-

types, or prejudices. However, as this article il-

lustrates, seemingly neutral insensitivity or ag-

gression toward persons could, in many cases,

serve as a convenient mask for unfair discrimi-

nation against socially undervalued persons.

Studies of this possibility would help address a

deficit that is often lamented in social psychol-

ogy: little research in the bias literature directly

assesses discriminatory behavior. This is a ma-

jor problem, because “thoughts and feelings do

not exclude, oppress, and kill people; behavior

does” (Fiske, 2000: 312). Selective incivility is a

specific behavior that could be the focus of

novel social psychological research.

Questions may arise as to what methods may

be most appropriate to launch this line of in-

quiry. Scholars interested in the antecedents of

incivility could use the social psychological ex-

periment as one research tool, pinpointing the

personal and social conditions under which

individuals are most likely to disrespect oth-

ers—particularly women and people of color.

Techniques developed by organizational psy-

chologists could also benefit social research

on modern discrimination. Particularly promis-

ing for this purpose are new survey methods for

assessing implicit motivation and cognition,

such as the “conditional reasoning” paradigm

(e.g., James, 1998; James & Mazerolle, 2003). In

addition, organizational and social psycholo-

gists could collaboratively translate stereotype-

control strategies developed in the laboratory

into respectful-workplace initiatives, followed

by evaluation of those initiatives in actual orga-

nizations. Finally, despite some discussion of

societal influences on modern discrimination,

empirical attention to this topic has been

sparse. Cross-cultural methods of studying or-

ganizational behavior (e.g., Gelfand, Raver, &

Ehrhart, 2002; Schaffer & Riordan, 2003) could

allow us to understand how social structural

forces impinge on bias in multinational organi-

zations. These are just a few examples of how

social and organizational psychologists—and

management scholars from other disciplines—

could pool their ideas and methodologies to ad-

vance research on incivility and discrimination

in the modern workplace.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Nonspecific workplace mistreatment—in the

absence of overtly sexual, sexist, or racist con-

duct—is not typically regarded as a Title VII

violation. However, in this article I propose that

employees may at times be differentially tar-

geted with incivility on the basis of their sex or

race, potentially creating disparate work envi-

ronments across social groups. At the very least,

this could interfere with the recruitment and re-

tention of a diverse workforce; at worst, perva-

sive patterns of incivility toward protected

classes of employees could expose the organi-

zation to legal liability. For these reasons it is

critical that organizations and policy makers de-

velop effective strategies for managing this dis-

guised form of workplace discrimination.

Referring again to Figure 1, interventions are

possible for every factor that fuels selective in-

civility, at the level of both person and context.

Indeed, it is important that both levels be tar-

geted, as Figure 2 illustrates. If explicit, internal

68 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

bias persists in an individual working in a non-

discriminatory context, the person may simply

transmute the bias into covert, rationalizable

forms of discrimination. Likewise, an employee

who fundamentally opposes gender and race

bias, but who works in discriminatory organiza-

tions, may give in to social pressures and dis-

criminate covertly. Given that selective incivil-

ity has antecedents at multiple levels, it seems

only logical that attempts to manage it also take

a multilevel approach. Below is a discussion of

person-level interventions, followed by societal

and organizational actions.

Person-Level Interventions

To reduce the incidence of selective incivil-

ity, some might assume that interventions

should primarily target the organizational

context, with less hope for intrapersonal re-

form. However, the social psychology litera-

ture is replete with ideas on how to do both:

modify the environment so as to influence in-

dividual cognition and affect, which could ul-

timately inhibit discriminatory behavior.

These techniques could potentially be applied

to the management of workplace incivility. A

complete review of this literature is beyond

the scope of this article, but I highlight several

segments as an illustration.

The emphasis in stereotype scholarship on

unconscious cognitive processes, unintentional-

ity, and automaticity may give the false impres-

sion that organizational attempts at influencing

social thought and emotion would be pointless.

On the contrary, research shows that it is possi-

ble to intervene at the outset of these internal

processes, manipulating perceivers’ cognitive

representations of their social worlds. Social

categorization may be automatic, but social cat-

egory boundaries—and the dimensions around

which they organize—are far from fixed. Thus, it

is possible to broaden peoples’ conceptions of

who belongs to their ingroup. This can foster

more positive, respectful attitudes and behavior

toward individuals formerly perceived as out-

group members.

To give a concrete example of this, Gaertner

and Dovidio (2000) developed the common in-

group identity model. This intervention shifts

conceptions of social group membership from

many separate groups to a more inclusive, su-

perordinate group. Experimental and field stud-

ies support the model, with the superordinate

identity created using a range of strategies (e.g.,

spatially integrating people, creating a common

group name, implementing joint evaluation and

reward systems) in a range of settings. The com-

mon group identity cultivates greater interde-

pendence, cooperation, and respect among indi-

viduals who were formerly members of separate

groups (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman,

2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider,

2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000;

Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Even when gender- or race-based social cate-

gorization occurs, it does not always yield ste-

reotypic thought, emotion, and behavior. De-

spite being natural and automatic, stereotyping

is not inevitable—it can occur automatically but

does not always occur. For instance, people ap-

parently do not engage in negative stereotypic

thinking when they are motivated to endorse a

positive judgment of the target. To demonstrate

this, research shows that when an employee

receives a positive evaluation by a member of a

stereotyped group, the employee is motivated by

self-interest to respect that person’s opinion; ste-

reotype activation does not occur (e.g., Devine &

Monteith, 1999; Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg &

Fiske, 1987).

Moreover, when it does occur, stereotype acti-

vation does not unavoidably lead to stereotype

application. Although a social perceiver may

initially categorize a person and trigger a ste-

reotype, the perceiver can be motivated to re-

place this automatic categorical processing

with more controlled, intentional, individuated

processing, and this can prevent a discrimina-

tory behavioral response. For example, situa-

tions that involve high stakes, emphasize the

need for accuracy, hold people accountable for

their judgments, relax undue time pressures, or

require cooperation to work toward shared

goals give rise to individuated processing in

lieu of stereotyping (e.g., Devine & Monteith,

1999; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004; Fiske, 2000,

2001, 2002; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Valian,

1998). In addition, learning and self-regulation

processes can help individuals self-monitor and

recognize situations in which they are suscepti-

ble to stereotyped responding; they can then

interrupt stereotypic thinking, even if it is acti-

vated, and generate nondiscriminatory behavior

(Brief & Barsky, 2000; Monteith, 1993). To quote

2008 69Cortina

Gordon Allport, social perceivers can sometimes

“put the brakes on prejudice” (1954: 332).

Situational Interventions

Societal context. Legal frameworks make up

an important piece of the fabric that holds civil

society together. However, one might wonder

whether existing law is relevant to uncivil work

behavior: because a defining feature of incivil-

ity is that intentionality is ambiguous, does the

absence of clear discriminatory intent remove

legal liability? The issue of intent factors into

some, but not all, legal definitions of discrimi-

nation. For example, in McDonnel Douglas Corp.

v. Green (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled

that proof of intent to discriminate must be

present before a behavior can be considered

unlawful intentional discrimination or disparate

treatment. However, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

(1971), the Supreme Court also ruled that unin-

tentional discrimination or adverse impact is

also unlawful. In other words, if an organization-

al practice has differential, adverse effects on

protected classes of employees, then that prac-

tice may be illegal, even if the effects are unin-

tentional. Likewise, the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (1993) has stated that

practices that have the effect of interfering with

work or creating a hostile work environment for

women and racial minorities constitute unlaw-

ful sexual and racial harassment, respectively,

regardless of the employer’s intent. Thus, when

workplace incivility is disproportionately tar-

geted at women and minorities and interferes

with their work and/or contributes to a hostile

environment, this situation may violate law.

Despite potential legal implications, it is un-

clear whether legal grievance mechanisms

present effective solutions to the problem of se-

lective incivility. These mechanisms require the

target to formally complain about the behavior,

which may not be a realistic expectation. Em-

ployees generally have high thresholds for

whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992), and iso-

lated acts of subtle discrimination may not seem

“severe” enough to warrant complaint (Dipboye

& Halverson, 2004; Rowe, 1990). As Neuman

notes, “How (and to whom) do you report having

had your feelings hurt, and what reporting sys-

tem captures the time you spend ruminating

about the perceived mistreatment? Furthermore,

would you believe that such an incident is seri-

ous enough to merit a formal report?” (2004: 74).

Moreover, individual instances of misconduct

may not appear discriminatory unless consid-

ered in the aggregate (Crosby, 1984; Crosby,

Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003; O’Leary-Kelly et

al., 2000), particularly compared to conduct tar-

geted at men and whites.

Further reducing complaint likelihood, targets

may experience attributional uncertainty about

incivility—a low-level behavior that lacks clear

intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and has no

overtly gendered or racial content (Lim & Cor-

tina, 2005). They may have difficulty deciding

whether they are experiencing general incivility

or, rather, discrimination based on their social

category membership (Cortina et al., 2002;

Schneider et al., 2000). Even if they do suspect

differential negative treatment, targets may still

hesitate to label their instigators’ behavior as

discriminatory. This would imply that the insti-

gators are prejudiced, which is generally seen

as immoral or evil in the current political cli-

mate of this country. Thus, accusations of prej-

udice could embroil targets in emotionally

charged, painful situations, which they would

likely prefer to avoid (Monin & Miller, 2001;

Swim et al., 2003). Given the subtlety and attri-

butional uncertainty inherent in these situa-

tions, it is even less likely that incivility targets

would file discrimination complaints with man-

agement.

In the rare cases when employees do come

forward with reports of selective incivility, man-

agers (or judges and juries) might not find such

“minor,” seemingly neutral misconduct worthy

of reprimand. This may be especially true when

instigators can provide a plausible, nonracial,

nongendered account for their behavior. To

make matters worse, some research suggests

that people who merely observe one social

group (e.g., women) treated less favorably than

another (men) are less likely to perceive the

treatment as discriminatory, compared with per-

ceptions of the individuals who are the direct

targets of the disparate treatment (Swim et al.,

2003). Managers are even further removed from

potentially discriminatory situations— only

hearing reports about them—so they may be

even less likely to believe that discrimination

has taken place. Moreover, it is difficult to dis-

cern discrimination in individual cases; pat-

terns of discrimination often emerge only with

the aggregation of multiple incidents across

70 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

persons, places, or time (Crosby, 1984; Crosby et

al., 2003; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000). For all of

these reasons, traditional, reactive, and legalis-

tic approaches to combating blatant discrimina-

tion may not be effective for managing subtle

biases in the form of selective incivility.

Organizational context. To create respectful,

incivility-free work environments, it would be-

hoove organizations to look beyond traditional

methods of achieving and managing diversity;

in particular, the reactive complaint mechanism

may have limited utility. Proactive, preventa-

tive, and educational approaches seem more

promising instead. For example, in the interest

of incivility prevention, senior management can

model appropriate, respectful workplace behav-

ior and clearly state expectations of civility in

mission statements or policy manuals. Refer-

ence checks for prospective employees can in-

clude questions about interpersonal behavior.

All new employees should receive education

about civility expectations, and employees at all

levels could undergo interpersonal skills train-

ing. When incivilities do arise, instigators

should be sanctioned swiftly, justly, and consis-

tently (Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson & Porath,

2004).

Given the links to gender and race theorized

in this article, I would also recommend that ef-

forts to prevent incivility dovetail with those ad-

dressing overt discrimination (e.g., sexual and

racial harassment). For example, organizational

procedures, policies, and practices to set norms

of civility could explicitly discuss equitable re-

spect toward women and men and members of

different ethnic groups (as well as employees

who are young and old, gay and straight, etc.).

Leaders should emphasize that unacceptable

discrimination includes not just overt acts of

misoygyny and bigotry but also subtle devalu-

ation and exclusion of social minorities. The

intended effect should be a broadening of em-

ployees’ construals of what it means to be non-

prejudiced (Brief & Barsky, 2000). Organizational

interventions should also incorporate solutions

from the social psychology literature on stereo-

typing and prejudice, detailed above. This sort

of combined strategy would provide a more ef-

ficient and effective means of combating antiso-

cial work behavior, which has many behavioral

faces (general, gendered, raced, etc.). Related

training programs might then attract broader

audiences, being relevant to all employees (re-

gardless of gender or ethnicity) and avoiding

resistance met by interventions that exclusively

target gender discrimination, racial discrimina-

tion, and so forth (Cortina et al., 2002; Lim &

Cortina, 2005; Podgor, 1996). As Brief et al. note,

“The forces driving discrimination in the work-

place are many, and any legitimate attempt to

combat discrimination must be multifaceted”

(1997: 68).

CONCLUSION

This article integrates the literature on work-

place incivility with that addressing modern

sexism and racism. The resulting concept—

selective incivility—is almost certainly more

pervasive than blatant discrimination and ha-

rassment in the workplace. Incivility is also, by

definition, more insidious, taking hold in such

an ambiguous and stealthy manner that it is

difficult to identify, manage, and prevent. This

speaks to the need for particular vigilance about

issues of “general” incivility, which may not be

so general after all. More research on the nature,

causes, and consequences of this workplace

phenomenon will bring us closer to being able

to combat it effectively. And, to the delight of

many, perhaps this ongoing work will ulti-

mately add a crack to the proverbial glass ceil-

ing.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The

spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy

of Management Review, 24: 452–471.

Ashforth, B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human

Relations, 47: 755–778.

Banaji, M. R., & Dasgupta, N. 1998. The consciousness of

social beliefs: A program of research on stereotyping

and prejudice. In V. Y. Yzerbt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne

(Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions:

157–170. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C.,

& Johnson, D. 1996. Prediction and replication of the

organizational and personal consequences of work-

place sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psy-

chology, 11: 4 –25.

Barling, J., Rogers, A., & Kelloway, E. 2001. Behind closed

doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harass-

ment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 6: 255–269.

2008 71Cortina

Baron, R. A. 2004. Workplace aggression and violence: In-

sights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M.

O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational be-

havior: 23– 61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baron, S. B., & Banaji, M. R. 2006. The development of implicit

attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and

10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17: 53–58.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:

Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental

human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Benokraitis, N. V. 1997. Sex discrimination in the 21st century.

In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice

and prospects for change: 5–33. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. 1995. Modern sexism (2nd

ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bjo¨rkqvist, K., O

sterman, K., & Hjelt-Ba¨ ck, M. 1994. Aggres-

sion among university employees. Aggressive Behavior,

20: 173–184.

Brief, A. P., & Barsky, A. 2000. Establishing a climate for

diversity: The inhibition of prejudiced reactions in the

workplace. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 19: 91–129.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Elliott, J. D., Reizenstein, R. M., &

McCline, R. L. 1995. Releasing the beast: A study of

compliance with orders to use race as a selection crite-

rion. Journal of Social Issues, 51: 177–193.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Cal-

lahan, J. D., McCline, R. L., & Vaslow, J. B. 1997. Beyond

good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in

the American workplace. Academy of Management Ex-

ecutive, 11(4): 59 –72.

Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow,

J. B. 2000. Just doing business: Modern racism and obe-

dience to authority as explanations for employment dis-

crimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-

sion Processes, 81: 72–97.

Brief, A. P., & Hayes, E. L. 1997. The continuing “American

dilemma”: Studying racism in organizations. Trends in

Organizational Behavior, 4: 89–105.

Buchanan, N. T. 2005. The nexus of race and gender domi-

nation: The racialized sexual harassment of African

American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the

company of men: Re-discovering the links between sex-

ual harassment and male domination: 294–320. Boston:

Northeastern University Press.

Cleveland, J., & Kerst, M. 1993. Sexual harassment and per-

ceptions of power: An underarticulated relationship.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 49 – 67.

Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., & Magley, V. J. 2004. Recon-

ceptualizing workplace incivility through the lenses of

gender and race. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology,

Chicago.

Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman,

L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald,

L. F. 2002. What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in

the federal courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 27: 235–270.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. 2007. Patterns and profiles of

response to incivility in organizations. Working paper,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout,

R. D. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and

impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6:

64– 80.

Crosby, F. J. 1984. The denial of personal discrimination.

American Behavioral Scientist, 27: 371–386.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. 2003.

Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy

debates. American Psychologist, 58: 93–115.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Brief, A. P., Chan, S., &

Bradley, J. C. 2003. Subtle yet significant: The existence

and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the

workplace. Human Relations, 56: 1299–1324.

Devine, P. G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: The automatic

and controlled components. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 56: 5–18.

Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. 1999. Automaticity and control

in stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-

process theories in social psychology; 339–360. New

York: Guilford Press.

Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. 2004. Subtle (and not so

subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin

& A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organiza-

tional behavior: 131–158. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 1998. On the nature of con-

temporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and

challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt &

S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and

the response: 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Aversive racism and

selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Sci-

ence, 11: 315–319.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Bachman, B. A. 2001. Racial

bias in organizations: The role of group processes and

its causes and cures. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at

work: Theory and research: 415– 444. Mahwah, NJ: Law-

rence Erlbaum Associates.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G.

2002. Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases

and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 8(2): 88–102.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K.

2001. Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in respond-

ing to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus:

Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social

Issues, 57: 167–188.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Reducing

contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and im-

plicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In

S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination:

137–163. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-

mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 45: 331–351.

72 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem

from the distribution of women and men into social

roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46:

735–754.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. 1999. The origins of sex differences

in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social

roles. American Psychologist, 54: 408– 423.

Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. 1997. Final re-

port and recommendations of the Eighth Circuit Gender

Fairness Task Force. Creighton Law Review, 31(1): 1–181.

Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. 1997. Harassment in the work-

place and the victimization of men. Violence and Vic-

tims, 12: 247–263.

Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. 1984. Outcome dependency and at-

tention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 47: 709 –726.

Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of

power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621–

628.

Fiske, S. T. 2000. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination

at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture,

mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology,

30: 299 –322.

Fiske, S. T. 2001. Effects of power on bias: Power explains

and maintains individual, group, and societal dispari-

ties. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuse

of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corrup-

tion: 181–193. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Fiske, S. T. 2002. What we know now about bias and inter-

group conflict, the problem of the century. Current Di-

rections in Psychological Science, 11: 123–128.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. M. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A model

of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and

warmth respectively follow from perceived status and

competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 82: 878 –902.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., &

Magley, V. J. 1997. The antecedents and consequences of

sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an inte-

grated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578–

589.

Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. 2004. First-

and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths

and related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Vio-

lence Against Women, 10: 236–261.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 1986. The aversive form of

racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice,

discrimination, and racism: 61– 89. Orlando, FL: Aca-

demic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 2000. Reducing intergroup

bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia:

Psychology Press.

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., & Ehrhart, K. H. 2002. Methodolog-

ical issues in cross-cultural organizational research. In

S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in

industrial and organizational psychology: 216–246. Mal-

den, MA: Blackwell.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior in

organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 1999. Sexism and other “isms”: Inter-

dependence, status, and the ambivalent content of ste-

reotypes. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gil-

bert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society:

The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence: 192–221.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 2001. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile

and benevolent sexism as contemporary justifications

for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56: 109 –

118.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cog-

nition: Attitudes, self-esteeem, and stereotypes. Psycho-

logical Review, 102: 4–27.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401, U.S. 424 (1971).

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. 2002.

Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study

of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 815–825.

Heller, K. 1989. The return to community. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 17: 1–16.

Hilton, J. L., & von Hipple, W. 1996. Stereotypes. Annual

Review of Psychology, 47: 237–271.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. 1999. Workplace bully-

ing. International Review of Industrial and Organiza-

tional Psychology, 14: 195–223.

Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1996. Organiza-

tional influences on sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale

(Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives,

frontiers, and response strategies: 127–150. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. Paternalism and conflict in gender,

class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of Califor-

nia Press.

Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. 2001. Contempo-

rary sexism and discrimination: The importance of re-

spect for men and women. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 27: 48–61.

James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. 2001. Preju-

dice matters: Understanding the reaction of whites to

affirmative action programs targeted to benefit blacks.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1120 –1128.

James, K., Lovato, C., & Khoo, G. 1994. Social identity corre-

lates of minority workers’ health. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 37: 383–396.

James, L. R. 1998. Measurement of personality via condi-

tional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1:

131–163.

James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. 2003. Personality in work

organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, M. 2002. Social psychology of prejudice. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. Multilevel theory,

research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,

2008 73Cortina

extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New

York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and

coping. New York: Springer.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. A multi-level model of incivility

in the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meet-

ing of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in

the workplace: The interface and outcomes of general

incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90: 483– 496.

Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M.

1999. The outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 390 – 402.

McConahay, J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the

modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner

(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: 91–125. Or-

lando, FL: Academic Press.

McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. 1976. Symbolic racism.

Journal of Social Issues, 32: 23– 45.

McDonnel Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. 2000. A modest manifesto for

shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review,

78(1): 127–136.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992. Blowing the whistle: The

organizational and legal implications for companies

and employees. New York: Lexington Books.

Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. 1986. Expectancies and interper-

sonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37: 233–

256.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. Working in a context

of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’

well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

9: 107–122.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2006. Observed incivility

toward women at work: The role of organizational jus-

tice. Paper presented at the APA/NIOSH Work, Stress

and Health Conference, Miami.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the

expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 81: 33–43.

Monteith, M. J. 1993. Self-regulation of prejudiced responses:

Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 469 –

485.

Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. 1987. Motivational influences on

impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-

driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 431– 444.

Neuman, J. H. 2004. Injustice, stress, and aggression in orga-

nizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.),

The dark side of organizational behavior: 62–102. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. 2000.

Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-

based perspective. Academy of Management Review,

25: 372–388.

Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. 1998. Racism equals power plus

prejudice: A social psychological equation for racial

oppression. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Con-

fronting racism: The problem and the response: 33–53.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. 2000. Assess-

ing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational

Dynamics, 29(2): 123–137.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. When

workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivil-

ity. Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2004. On incivility, its impact,

and directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin &

A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organization-

al behavior: 403– 425. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. 1987. Shaping the organizational

context for black American inclusion. Journal of Social

Issues, 43: 41–78.

Podgor, E. 1996. Lawyer professionalism in a gendered soci-

ety. South Carolina Law Review, 47: 323–348.

Pretty, G. H., & McCarthy, M. 1991. Exploring psychological

sense of community among women and men of the cor-

poration. Journal of Community Psychology, 19: 1351–

1361.

Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. 1995. A social

psychological model for predicting sexual harassment.

Journal of Social Issues, 51: 69 – 84.

Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty,

J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M., & Johnson, T. P. 1999. Sexual

harassment and generalized workplace abuse: Preva-

lence and mental health correlates. American Journal of

Public Health, 89: 358–363.

Riger, S. 1991. Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment pol-

icies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46: 497–

505.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling

study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555–572.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey see,

monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antiso-

cial behavior of employees. Academy of Management

Journal, 41: 658 –672.

Rospenda, K. 2002. Workplace harassment, services utiliza-

tion, and drinking outcomes. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 7: 141–155.

Rowe, M. P. 1990. Barriers to equality: The power of subtle

discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Em-

ployee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 3: 153–163.

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived dis-

crimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity

management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 39: 704–719.

Sarason, S. B. 1974. The psychological sense of community:

74 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

Prospects for a community psychology. Cambridge, MA:

Brookline Books.

Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. 2003. A review of cross-

cultural methodologies for organizational research. Or-

ganizational Research Methods, 6: 169–215.

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. 2000. An

examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic ha-

rassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85: 3–12.

Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open

systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sears, D. O. 1988. Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor

(Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy: 53– 84.

New York: Plenum Press.

Sears, D. O. 1988. Racism and politics in the United States. In

J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism:

The problem and the response: 76–100. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the work-

place: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interac-

tional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434 –

443.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of

voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between coun-

terproductive work behavior and organizational citizen-

ship behavior. Human Resource Management Review,

12: 269 –292.

Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. 1992. Stigmas in

organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattrac-

tiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in

industrial/organizational psychology: 385– 457. Oxford:

North-Holland.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. 1995.

Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern preju-

dices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68:

199–214.

Swim, J. K., Scott, E. D., Sechrist, G. B., Campbell, B., &

Stangor, C. 2003. The role of intent and harm in judg-

ments of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 84: 944 –959.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of

intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),

Psychology of intergroup relations: 7–24. Chicago: Nel-

son-Hall.

Thacker, R. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1991. Understanding sexual

harassment in the workplace: The influence of power

and politics within the dyadic interaction of harasser

and target. Human Resource Management Review, 1:

23–37.

Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. 1995. Neosex-

ism: Plus c¸a change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 842–849.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Guide-

lines on harassment based on race, color, religion, gen-

der, national origin, age, or disability. 58 Fed. Reg.

51,266. Washington, DC: U.S. Equal Employment Oppor-

tunity Commission.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2003.

Charge statistics FY 1992 through FY 2002. Washington,

DC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. 1996. Violence on the job:

Identifying risks and developing solutions. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Wheaton, B. 1997. The nature of chronic stress. In B. H. Gott-

lieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 43–74. New York:

Plenum Press.

Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1999. The

effects of organizational practices on sexual harass-

ment and individual outcomes in the military. Military

Psychology, 11: 303–328.

Williams, K. D. 1998. Social exclusion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),

Aversive interpersonal behaviors: 133–170. New York:

Plenum Press.

Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. 1997. Social exclusion by

coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensa-

tion? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23:

693–706.

Lilia M. Cortina (lilia@umich.edu) is an associate professor of psychology and wom-

en’s studies at the University of Michigan. She received her Ph.D. in psychology from

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research addresses victimization

and gender in organizations, focusing in particular on employee experiences of

incivility and sexual harassment.

2008 75Cortina

Workplace Incivility and Job Stress: A Study among Nurses

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025

Workplace incivility, a brazen behavior, is an omnipresent form of antisocial behavior in the workplaces. It is an unethical organizational behavior which has reported a plethora of negative consequences on employees as well as on the organization as a whole. The ascendency in uncivil workplace behaviors in organizations and it's far and wide implications especially on employee well-being as reported in the literature occupies all the more relevance for carrying out the present study. The study therefore, aims to document the prevalence of workplace incivility and ascertain its relationship with job stress among nurses working in various hospitals of Srinagar city. Taking into cognizance the Affective Events to support the literature, the study investigated the strategies adopted by the nurses to combat the consequences of uncivil behaviors at the workplace. A total of 120 nurses who participated in the study were administered a well-established questionnaire using random sampling technique. As hypothesized, a positive correlation between workplace incivility and job stress was found.

“Que comportamento grosseiro!” Itinerários, campo conceitual e novas possibilidades de pesquisas da incivilidade no trabalho

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

A incivilidade está relacionada à comportamentos desrespeitosos, hostis e rudes, entre os funcionários no ambiente de trabalho. O objetivo deste estudo é identificar como encontra-se concebida a estrutura conceitual da incivilidade no trabalho por meio do mapeamento dos itinerários da produção científica internacional. A partir de uma revisão sistemática da literatura desenvolvida na Web of Science sem delimitação temporal, foi possível apresentar insights e um entendimento mais amplo e aprofundado desse campo específico de estudo. Os resultados revelaram que a estrutura conceitual do tema é agrupada em quatro clusters de pesquisa, a saber: incivilidade e variáveis moderadoras (concentrada nas experiências dos indivíduos), relação da incivilidade com variáveis do trabalho, incivilidade instigada e cibernética e os antecedentes, e a incivilidade e sua relação com o autocontrole e ansiedade. Além disso, puderam ser identificados os antecedentes e consequentes da incivilidade o que deu luz a um modelo teórico, as práticas e políticas de recursos humanos para mitigar e combater os efeitos da incivilidade e, uma agenda de pesquisa foi desenhada com novas oportunidades. Essa revisão pode orientar gestores e acadêmicos a compreenderem a natureza desse tipo de comportamento e que práticas de RH podem contribuir para mitigar comportamentos incivis no trabalho.

Managerialism and Workplace Bullying In Higher Education: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025

This research study considers whether the adoption of managerialism strategies within higher education institutions across the world has diminished the influence of societal culture on workplace bullying, thereby exacerbating its harmful effects on employees. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are used to understand the influence of societal culture on the occurrence of workplace bullying within academic working environments. Dialectic phenomenology, and empirical findings in the form of in-depth qualitative interviews with academics in the United States of America (USA) and India generate interesting insights on variations, if any, pertaining to “why”, “who”, “how” and the “outcome of” workplace bullying within managerialist inspired academic environments across two diverse cultural contexts. This paper provides compelling evidence that societal culture may have a minimal impact on the occurrence of workplace bullying. On the contrary, academic workplaces across the world might be uniform in terms of operations and outcomes, showing a consistent preference for managerialism strategies that can be held responsible for the proliferation of unhampered workplace bullying.

Incivility in the workplace: the impact on performance, patient care and wellbeing

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
Br J Community Nurs

Julie Green

Incivility and Ostracism in the Workplace among staff nurses and its relation to the quality of care

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

Background: Workplace place incivility may lead to different outcomes that an increase in mental and physical stress. Aim: To assess the incivility and ostracism in the workplace among staff nurses and its relation to the quality of care. Research Design: Descriptive correlational research design was utilized. Setting: The current study was conducted at South Vally University Hospital. Subjects: A convenience sample consisted of 100 staff nurses were enrolled in the study. Tools: Three main tools were used (I) Workplace Incivility scale, (II) Workplace Ostracism Scale, and (III) Quality of Nursing Care scale. Results: In the results of the current study more than half of the nurses had a low level of workplace ostracism. The overall mean of the quality of nursing care scale was 3.14 (SD = 0.66) from a scale of 1-5 and health promotion was the lowest mean dimension (mean = 3.08, SD = 0.74). Nurse incivility exerted a multivariate effect on the overall quality of nursing care and its different dimensions. There was a low-level positive (r = 0,302; p <0, 01) statistically significant correlation between staff nurses' workplace incivility and workplace ostracism. Conclusion: General incivility and nurse incivility were found to negatively affect the quality of nursing care and its different dimensions. Recommendations: Incivility must be treated with a zero-tolerance policy by hospital administrators. Administrators at hospitals must foster a positive work environment in which civil communication is the norm and hospital standards are known and obeyed. Provide useful information to enhance the quality of nursing care by acting in incivility concerns that arise from various sources within the hospital.

Invoking Biko in MOS: Black Consciousness as potential liberatory praxis for confronting organizational and workplace anti-Black racism

Article

Feb 2025

This conceptual paper addresses the critical issue of anti-Black racism within organizations and aims to spark a discussion on action-oriented Black liberation beyond the workplace. Drawing inspiration from African anticolonial thought, particularly Steve Biko’s Black Consciousness (BC) political framework, we propose a praxis to tackle anti-Black racial violence at societal, organizational, and interpersonal levels in Southern Africa and beyond. Our goal is to invigorate scholarly engagement with Black liberation in Management and Organization Studies (MOS). By leveraging the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), we seek to encourage decolonization and enrich management knowledge systems by highlighting diverse sources that contribute to organizational knowledge. We (re)imagine political means to confront anti-Black racism and foster Black liberation in (post)colonial workspaces, contributing to the enrichment of MOS, a field that has been relatively apolitical and silent on anti-Black racism and the lived experiences of marginalized Black people. We propose BC-inspired political praxis that includes initiatives at the societal (macro), organizational (meso), and interpersonal/personal (micro) levels, involving employees as insider activists and Black scholar-activists, Black community social activists, and allies as outsider activists working collaboratively to confront anti-Black racism and decolonize organizations and society. We conclude by calling for more theorizing on Black liberation in MOS to develop strategies to resist and dismantle anti-Black racism within academia, organizations and society.

Hidden Bias, Overt Impact: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Racial Microaggressions at Work

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2025
J BUS ETHICS

This article presents a systematic review of literature on workplace racial microaggressions. Increasingly, workplaces around the world have made concerted efforts to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in their workforces. However, racial discrimination is a social issue that continues to be endemic to the workplace—including, yet not limited to, the prevalence of racial microaggressions. These microaggressions can, at times, be covert, and undertaken sometimes without the explicit awareness or intention of the perpetrator. Yet, the consequences of these can be very real for the person impacted (the target), which include diminished wellbeing, job satisfaction, and career progression. To capture the overall trends and themes that empirical research has examined related to workplace racial microaggressions, a systematic review of 48 scholarly peer-reviewed articles on the topic was conducted. The review highlights how racial microaggressions have been conceptualized and measured in previous work, and critically examines empirical findings to date. The systematic review reveals that more work needs to be done to advance our understanding of this field of inquiry. To address this, a future research agenda based on identified gaps in the literature is articulated which highlights opportunities for advancement of the literature. Addressing these gaps will provide actionable insights for organizations in addressing the insidious social issue of racial microaggressions in the workplace, and support scholars in the development of future work.

İş Yeri Nezaketsizliği

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Utku Demirci

Mapping the Mistreatment Landscape: An Integrative Review and Reconciliation of Workplace Mistreatment Constructs

Article

Mar 2025
J ORGAN BEHAV

As the literature on workplace mistreatment has grown, so too have the number of constructs proposed to represent distinctive forms of mistreatment. However, considerable disagreement exists surrounding whether these proposed constructs represent unique manifestations of workplace mistreatment or represent a single underlying phenomenon. This paper therefore offers an integrative review of the workplace mistreatment literature with the goal of aiding in construct reconciliation. More specifically, this review summarizes the underlying theories, motives, behavioral expressions, and correlates of extant workplace mistreatment constructs to critically examine their similarities and differences. We then leverage that review to propose a taxonomy of mistreatment that advances four key dimensions along which mistreatment behaviors may vary: motives, contact, harm, and prohibition. Finally, the review concludes with a roadmap to direct future research toward unanswered questions that must be addressed before the similarities and differences among existing mistreatment constructs can truly be understood. The goal is to encourage mistreatment scholars to reconsider the current boundaries erected around mistreatment constructs and whether they best represent the meaningful ways in which discrete manifestations of mistreatment vary. This paper also aims to guide researchers toward ways mistreatment constructs can be repackaged to yield novel insights into how mistreatment operates.

Silence Is Not Always Golden: Exploring the Impact of Leader Intervention Against Racial Microaggressions Against Asian Americans

Article

Mar 2024
AM BEHAV SCI

The racialization of COVID-19 as an Asian virus has been linked to growing reports of racial harassment and violence targeting Asian Americans. We examine one such manifestation of racial harassment against Asians in the form of workplace microaggressions, such as a coworker referring to the virus as the “Chinese virus” and the negative impact that these forms of racial microaggressions can have on those who witness them. We also examine the influence of a leader who intervenes versus a leader who stays silent when a microaggression occurs, highlighting the positive impact of leaders who condemn microaggressions while underscoring the negative impact of leaders who stay silent. We found that, among those who witness microaggressions, Asian Americans were more likely to ruminate and report negative perceptions of the aggressor than Whites. We also found that leader intervention improved perceptions of leader effectiveness and that leader trust mediated this process, especially among Asian Americans. Additionally, we found that leader intervention decreased turnover intentions.

Prejudice Matters: Understanding the Reactions of Whites to Affirmative Action Programs Targeted to Benefit Blacks

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2001

The authors examined, in 2 studies, the effects of equal employment opportunity/affirmative action (EEO/AA) policies on Whites' job-related attitudes. First, in an experiment, White prospective job recruits, as expected, rated a potential employer whose EEO/AA policies were framed as targeted to benefit Blacks as less attractive than a potential employer whose EEO/AA policies were framed more generally. Second, the results of a field study showed that prejudice against Blacks moderated the relationship between Whites' perceptions that their organization's EEO/AA policies were targeted to benefit Blacks and their satisfaction with promotion opportunities. Specifically, among prejudiced Whites, this relationship was negative and considerable in size (r = –.39, p<.01); whereas, among nonprejudiced Whites, it was negligible (r = –.04, ns). The implications of our findings for the study of prejudice in organizations are discussed.

Behind Closed Doors: In-Home Workers’ Experience of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2001

The authors developed and tested a structural model predicting personal and organizational consequences of workplace violence and sexual harassment for health care professionals who work inside their client’s home. The model suggests that workplace violence and sexual harassment predict fear of their recurrence in the workplace, which in turn predicts negative mood (anxiety and anger) and perceptions of injustice. In turn, fear, negative mood, and perceived injustice predict lower affective commitment and enhanced withdrawal intentions, poor interpersonal job performance, greater neglect, and cognitive difficulties. The results supported the model and showed that the associations of workplace violence and sexual harassment with organizational and personal outcomes are indirect, mediated by fear and negative mood. Conceptual implications for understanding sexual harassment and workplace violence, and future research directions, are suggested.

An Examination of the Nature and Correlates of Ethnic Harassment Experiences in Multiple Contexts

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2000

The authors examined the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in 4 predominantly Hispanic samples of working men and women (N = 575) using a newly developed scale. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 2-factor structure for the Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale (i.e., verbal ethnic harassment and exclusion due to ethnicity). Most experiences of ethnic harassment in the workplace during the previous 24 months included verbal ethnic harassment (i.e., ethnic slurs, derogatory ethnic comments, or ethnic jokes). It was also found that participants who experienced verbal ethnic harassment and exclusion reported negative correlates that could not be attributed to affective disposition. For some correlates, those who experienced low levels of verbal harassment and high levels of exclusion were more negatively affected than others, perhaps as a result of the attributional ambiguity of the situation.

Outcomes of Self-Labeling Sexual Harassment

Article

Full-text available

Jun 1999

Research has consistently documented a discrepancy between experiencing offensive sex-related behaviors and labeling these situations as sexual harassment, leading to several attempts to understand this phenomenon. The authors propose that the issue of why it is that women who report such experiences generally do not indicate that they have been sexually harassed is an important psychological question, and may provide a path through the nested meanings of workplace harassment. The authors argue for the value of moving beyond a descriptive approach to this issue by examining the effects of self-labeling on the psychological, health, and work-related outcomes of unwelcome, sex-related experiences. They present data from female employees working in 3 separate organizations, demonstrating that women exposed to such behaviors report very similar consequences, whether they label their experiences as harassment or not.

Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

Article

Full-text available

Jun 1997

The authors investigated the relationship between organizational justice and organizational retaliation behavior —adverse reactions to perceived unfairness by disgruntled employees toward their employer—in a sample of 240 manufacturing employees. Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice interacted to predict organizational retaliation behavior. A relation between distributive justice and retaliation was found only when there was low interactional and procedural justice. The 2-way interaction of distributive and procedural justice was observed only at a low level of interactional justice, and the 2-way interaction of distributive and interactional justice was observed only at a low level of procedural justice.

Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1995

Social behavior is ordinarily treated as being under conscious (if not always thoughtful) control. However, considerable evidence now supports the view that social behavior often operates in an implicit or unconscious fashion. The identifying feature of implicit cognition is that past experience influences judgment in a fashion not introspectively known by the actor. The present conclusion—that attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes have important implicit modes of operation—extends both the construct validity and predictive usefulness of these major theoretical constructs of social psychology. Methodologically, this review calls for increased use of indirect measures—which are imperative in studies of implicit cognition. The theorized ordinariness of implicit stereotyping is consistent with recent findings of discrimination by people who explicitly disavow prejudice. The finding that implicit cognitive effects are often reduced by focusing judges’ attention on their judgment task provides a basis for evaluating applications (such as affirmative action) aimed at reducing such unintended discrimination.

Controlling Other People

Article

Full-text available

Jun 1993

Susan T. Fiske

This article presents a theory of the mutually reinforcing interaction between power and stereotyping, mediated by attention. The powerless attend to the powerful who control their outcomes, in an effort to enhance prediction and control, so forming complex, potentially nonstereotypic impressions. The powerful pay less attention, so are more vulnerable to stereotyping. The powerful (a) need not attend to the other to control their own outcomes, (b) cannot attend because they tend to be attentionally overloaded, and (c) if they have high need for dominance, may not want to attend. Stereotyping and power are mutually reinforcing because stereotyping itself exerts control, maintaining and justifying the status quo. Two legal cases and a body of research illustrate the theory and suggest organizational change strategies.

Personality in Work Organizations

Book