ArticlePublisher preview available

Silenced by Incivility

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Some theories suggest that women anticipate negative consequences (i.e., backlash) for counter-stereotypical actions and take steps to avoid those consequences. We propose that women may expect gender-based backlash for voicing, or contributing ideas that challenge the status quo, and thus engage in more silence (withholding those contributions) than men. However, we also propose that women anticipate gender backlash, and hence engage in more silence, only when other group members’ behavior signals that deviating from prescribed gender norms is risky. In two studies with over 3000 participants, we found that incivility increased women’s expectation that voicing would lead to gender backlash. In turn, women engaged in more silence than men in uncivil groups, but we found no gender difference in silence in civil groups. Our findings reveal that certain situations differentially alert people to interpersonal risks, thus influencing their decision to withhold contributions.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Business Ethics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05799-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Silenced byIncivility
KristinBain1 · KathrynColl2 · TamarA.Kreps3 · ElizabethR.Tenney4
Received: 21 December 2023 / Accepted: 7 August 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024
Abstract
Some theories suggest that women anticipate negative consequences (i.e., backlash) for counter-stereotypical actions and take
steps to avoid those consequences. We propose that women may expect gender-based backlash for voicing, or contributing
ideas that challenge the status quo, and thus engage in more silence (withholding those contributions) than men. However,
we also propose that women anticipate gender backlash, and hence engage in more silence, only when other group members
behavior signals that deviating from prescribed gender norms is risky. In two studies with over 3000 participants, we found
that incivility increased women’s expectation that voicing would lead to gender backlash. In turn, women engaged in more
silence than men in uncivil groups, but we found no gender difference in silence in civil groups. Our findings reveal that
certain situations differentially alert people to interpersonal risks, thus influencing their decision to withhold contributions.
Keywords Incivility· Voice· Silence· Gender· Backlash avoidance
Introduction
“I was once told that 99% of the time, the perspective
and suggestions I offer about my business was “spot
on.” Seconds later I was told that the people I tell it
to think I’m “not nice,” because I offer it, not for any
other reason. In the end, management believed that
it was my problem that others didn’t perceive me as
“nice” and wanted me to change. I often wish for a way
to quantify the damage such decisions make on a com-
pany. Luckily, I’ve found smarter companies that make
fewer mistakes like these” (Metcalf, 2015; Facebook
comment responding to Sandberg & Grant, 2015).
“I’ve been spoken down to, laughed at, interrupted and
mansplained to more times than I can count!” (lawyer
explaining barriers she faced while trying to voice;
Cooper etal., 2021, p. 727).
Commentators including Rebecca Solnit (2012, 2014)
and Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant (2015) have written
widely popular and resonant essays pointing out that women
often feel silenced at work. In Internet comments responding
to these essays, hundreds of women shared experiences of
wanting to speak up with a contribution yet holding back.
In other words, these women could have engaged in voice
(sharing ideas, concerns, and opinions with the intention
of improving the workgroup or organization; Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998) but instead chose silence (i.e., withholding
those contributions; Morrison & Milliken, 2003). Unfortu-
nately, remaining silent in organizations can cost women:
Employees who withhold their contributions forgo benefits
that employees can gain from voicing, such as increased
status, better performance evaluations, and being perceived
as having promotion potential (Brykman & Raver, 2021;
Howell etal., 2015; Weiss & Morrison, 2018). Addition-
ally, individuals who frequently engage in silence may be
disproportionately denied benefits (An & Bramble, 2018)
and experience more burnout (Knoll etal., 2019; Sherf etal.,
Kristin Bain and Kathryn Coll have contributed equally.
* Kristin Bain
Kbain@saunders.rit.edu
1 Management Department, Saunders College ofBusiness,
Rochester Institute ofTechnology, 107 Lomb Memorial
Drive, Rochester, NY14623, USA
2 Management Department, College ofBusiness, University
ofNevada Reno, Reno, USA
3 Management andIndustrial Relations Department, Shidler
College ofBusiness, University ofHawai‘i atMānoa,
Honolulu, USA
4 Management Department, David Eccles School ofBusiness,
University ofUtah, SaltLakeCity, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Three experiments tested and extended recent theory regarding motivational influences on impression formation (S. T. Fiske & S. L. Neuberg, 1990; J. L. Hilton & J. M. Darley, 1991) in the context of an impression management dilemma that women face: Self-promotion may be instrumental for managing a competent impression, yet women who self-promote may suffer social reprisals for violating gender prescriptions to be modest. Experiment 1 investigated the influence of perceivers’ goals on processes that inhibit stereotypical thinking, and reactions to counterstereotypical behavior. Experiments 2–3 extended these findings by including male targets. For female targets, self-promotion led to higher competence ratings but incurred social attraction and hireability costs unless perceivers were outcome-dependent males. For male targets, self-effacement decreased competence and hireability ratings, though its effects on social attraction were inconsistent.
Article
Full-text available
When people enter new work settings, we theorized that they are vulnerable to questioning whether they will be received in ways that allow them to contribute to shared goals. If so, treatment that clarifies the stance that others take toward the self, which we call microinclusions, that convey a receptivity and supportiveness to one’s contributions may bolster a sense of fit. Further, in examining this question in technology contexts, we theorized that such microinclusions may be particularly impactful for women for whom underrepresentation and negative stereotypes make opportunities to contribute especially fraught. Four primary experiments (N = 1,861, Nwomen in STEM = 1,430) tested this theorizing. In Experiment 1, both men and women at a large technology company anticipated greater fit in a work group described with microinclusions, yet this effect was greatest for women. Experiments 2–4 replicated this effect among women science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professionals and college students considering a career in technology and showed that women’s anticipated fit arose over and beyond socially warm treatment (Experiment 2); arose more when the microinclusion came from a man (vs. another woman; Experiment 3); and arose even when observing another woman receive a microinclusion (Experiment 4). Microinclusions also increased women’s commitment to the company (Experiments 2 and 4) and reduced their anticipated experience of stereotype threat (Experiment 3). This research highlights the ambiguity women face in technology settings about whether they will be received in ways that allow them to contribute to shared work goals and the importance of treatment from coworkers that affirms this opportunity.
Article
Full-text available
Workplace incivility has been touted as a form of modern discrimination with serious negative consequences for the target. The increasingly unequal gender distribution in STEM workforce has also been attributed to workplace incivility. This study examines the lived experience of this covert mistreatment for women employees in STEM workplaces. Data from STEM women employees revealed a typology of STEM incivility, mapping onto ostracism, hostility, undermining, and sexual incivility. Further, the gendered nature and STEM-specific phenomenology of incivility against women employees, based on instigator characteristics, incivility frequency, and the general climate of STEM which aided or fostered interpersonal mistreatment was found. Drawing on affective events theory from organizational sciences and grounded in the STEM industry, this research examined the person-centric, emotional consequences of being a target of STEM incivility. Three broad themes that describe the first-person, felt-experience impact of mistreatment were as follows: discrete emotions, emotion regulation, duration of emotion experience. Upon encountering uncivil interpersonal experiences, participant reactions fell among one of four discrete emotional states: anger, fear, sadness, and surprise. Emotion regulation emerged as a key feature of the affective response. Specifically, STEM demands were tied to participant utilization of the regulation strategy of suppression to hide the felt emotion initially and reappraisal and response modulation over time. Importantly, although understood as a mild event, the emotional consequences of incivility were long-lasting such that they continued beyond the episode, lasting anywhere from two hours to a week. The STEM context was central to the emotion trajectories. Results are discussed with respect to work performance, attitudinal, and health-related consequences for women employees in STEM jobs. Practical implications are discussed with a special grounding in STEM context with an eye toward best practices for managing incivility for women in STEM.
Article
Full-text available
Though we would like to believe that people universally consider workplace mistreatment to be an indicator of injustice, we describe why bystanders can react to justice events (in this study, vicariously observing or becoming aware of others being mistreated) with diverging perceptions of organizational injustice. We show that a bystander’s gender and their gender similarity to the target of mistreatment can produce identity threat, which affects whether bystanders perceive the overall organization to be rife with gendered mistreatment and unfairness. Identity threat develops via two pathways—an emotion-focused reaction and a cognitive-focused processing of the event—and each pathway distally relates to different levels of bystanders’ justice perceptions. We test these notions in three complementary studies: two laboratory experiments (N = 563; N = 920) and a large field study (N = 8,196 employees in 546 work units). Results generally show that bystanders who are women or similar in gender to the target of mistreatment reported different levels of emotional and cognitive identity threat that related to psychological gender mistreatment climate and workplace injustice following the incident as compared to men and those not similar in gender to the target. Overall, by integrating and extending bystander theory and dual-process models of injustice perceptions, through this work, we provide a potentially overlooked reason why negative behaviors like incivility, ostracism, and discrimination continue to occur in organizations.
Article
Full-text available
The debate around vaccine passports has been polarising and controversial. Although the measure allows businesses to resume in-person operations and enables transitioning out of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some have expressed concerns about liberty violations and discrimination. Understanding the splintered viewpoints can aid businesses in communicating such measures to employees and consumers. We conceptualise the business implementation of vaccine passports as a moral decision rooted in individual values that influence reasoning and emotional reaction. We surveyed support for vaccine passports on a nationally representative sample in the United Kingdom in 2021: April (n = 349), May (n = 328), and July (n = 311). Drawing on the Moral Foundations Theory—binding (loyalty, authority, and sanctity), individualising (fairness and harm), and liberty values—we find that individualising values are a positive predictor and liberty values a negative predictor of support for passports, suggesting adoption hinges on addressing liberty concerns. Longitudinal analysis examining the trajectory of change in support over time finds that individualising foundations positively predict changes in utilitarian and deontological reasoning over time. In contrast, a fall in anger over time predicts increased support towards vaccine passports. Our study can inform business and policy communication strategies of existing vaccine passports, general vaccine mandates, and similar measures in future pandemics.
Article
Full-text available
Declining survey response rates have driven many researchers to seek out cost‐effective methods of increasing participation, such as conducting surveys online, paying incentives, and using social media to engage hard‐to‐reach populations. Malicious actors can exploit the monetary incentives and anonymity of online surveys, threatening the integrity of survey data. We share two recent experiences conducting online surveys that were inundated with fraudulent responses. Our objective is to increase awareness of this emerging issue and offer guidance for others to mitigate the effects of fraudulent responders in their own research.
Article
We present a conceptual framework of situational moderators of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership—three masculine-stereotypic domains associated with gender/sex gaps in pay and authority. We propose that greater situational ambiguity and higher relevance and salience of gender/sex increase the likelihood of gender/sex-linked behaviors in these domains. We argue that greater ambiguity increases the extent to which actors and audiences must search inwardly (e.g., mental schema, past experience) or outwardly (e.g., social norms) for cues on how to behave or evaluate a situation and thereby widens the door for gender/sex-linked influences. Correspondingly, we propose that gender/sex effects on behavior and evaluations in these domains will be more likely when gender/sex is more relevant and salient to the setting or task. We propose further that these two situational moderators may work jointly or interactively to influence the likelihood of gender/sex effects in negotiation, risk-taking, and leadership. We conclude by discussing applications of our conceptual framework to psychological science and its translation to practice, including directions for future research.
Article
Psychological scientists are increasingly using preregistration as a tool to increase the credibility of research findings. Many of the benefits of preregistration rest on the assumption that preregistered plans are followed perfectly. However, research suggests that this is the exception rather than the norm, and there are many reasons why researchers may deviate from their preregistered plans. Preregistration can still be a valuable tool, even in the presence of deviations, as long as those deviations are well documented and transparently reported. Unfortunately, most preregistration deviations in psychology go unreported or are reported in unsystematic ways. In the current article, we offer a solution to this problem by providing a framework for transparent and standardized reporting of preregistration deviations, which was developed by drawing on our own experiences with preregistration, existing unpublished templates, feedback from colleagues and reviewers, and the results of a survey of 34 psychology-journal editors. This framework provides a clear template for what to do when things do not go as planned. We conclude by encouraging researchers to adopt this framework in their own preregistered research and by suggesting that journals implement structural policies around the transparent reporting of preregistration deviations.