No description available.

Incivility is a common form of low-grade aggression that lacks a clear intent to harm, that violates community norms and values for interpersonal conduct, and is often chronic in nature (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Because of its subtleties, it is difficult at times to detect and even more difficult to prevent. However, it is an essential phenomenon to research, due to its ubiquity and negative impact on worker outcomes such as job satisfaction and psychological health (Cortina et al., 2001). Incivility instigated by those in authority may be an even bigger problem, due to victims’ fear of retaliation in the event that they choose to report the incivility (Estes & Wang, 2008). Furthermore, as the global economy shrinks and intercultural interactions become the rule rather than the exception, the norms for “good interpersonal conduct” become blurred, leading to even greater and more frequent incivility (Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009; Pearson & Porath, 2005). Yet while it logically follows that incivility may be defined differently across different cultures, little research has been done on this topic. Furthermore, it is unclear how to “fix” the incivility problem in the workplace. Pearson and Porath (2005) suggested that organizational norms strongly endorsing civility could mitigate the occurrence of workplace incivility. The purpose of this research is to test the effects of internal cultural values and external group norms on perceptions of and reactions to leader incivility in a group setting. To test this, I manipulated leader incivility, cultural values, and group civility norms in a laboratory setting. Participants were exposed to a cultural value prime in which they were primed to endorse either high or low power distance values. Then, in a group setting, participants were presented with either a pro-civility or neutral group norm, and proceeded to engage in a group iv discussion with a confederate leader. This confederate leader was inconspicuously selected from among the participants and followed a script in which he consistently engaged in incivility towards both group members while conducting the group discussion. After completing the group discussion, the leader left for leader training and the participants engaged in an interdependent business simulation. At periodic segments throughout the experiment, I assessed participants’ affective states as well as their perceptions of interactional justice and intragroup conflict. Regression analyses generally supported hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of values on perceptions of and reactions to incivility. Power distance predicted individuals’ assessment of justice in the face of leader incivility; the interaction effect of power distance values and civility norms approached (but did not achieve) significance. Justice perceptions were strongly negatively correlated with participants’ experience of anger; anger was found to mediate the relationship between participants’ justice assessments (when the leader was present) and their perceptions of intragroup conflict (when the leader was absent). Power distance values and civility norms both moderated the relationship between anger and individual-level perception of intragroup conflict. At the group level of analysis, relationship conflict negatively predicted group performance, but task conflict positively predicted group performance, when there were pro-civility norms in place. These findings have implications for diverse organizations attempting to promote justice, harmony, and civility within their organizations. Incivility is a nuanced phenomenon and one that is perceived and responded to differently across individuals. Cultural values play a role, but so do organizational norms. Future research is needed to explore further the interactive effects of cultural values and organizational norms, and how organizations can leverage these to prevent the occurrence and negative consequences of workplace incivility.

College students are using their mobile devices during class and this research investigates different aspects of why college students feel so inclined to use these devices during class as well as by what means are students using to participate in computer-mediated communication while simultaneously engaging in classes. This research surveyed 146 students on their perceived use of their own mobile device use during class. The study compared how often different types of devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, and laptops, and different types of social media outlets, like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media websites, were used during class. The study compares these devices and media outlets to students’ perception of the levels of incivility of using these various means of communication during class and their perceptions of how they impact their ability to focus on the class. Mobile phones, Facebook, and Twitter use were negatively associated with the perception of the incivility of use in the classroom. This research found phone use was viewed as more uncivil than tablets and tablet use was viewed as more uncivil than laptop use. In addition, students’ perceptions of instructors’ tolerance of mobile phone and laptop use was negatively associated with their perception of the incivility of using those devices during class. All three tested mobile devices and all three tested social media outlets were positively associated with students’ perception that its use affects their ability to focus on the class. This research found mobile phones use as more distracting than laptops and laptops use as more distracting than tablets.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Yes / This paper responds to the dearth of research into women's negative intra-gender relations and lack of understanding as to why and how these relations manifest. Through a qualitative study of women elite leaders' experiences in UK organizations, the research considers how gendered contexts, women doing gender well and differently simultaneously, intra-gender competition and female misogyny may explain negative intra-gender social relations between women. We consider micro-aggression research and women's abjection and offer a unique conceptualization of intra-gender micro-violence with themes of disassociating, suppression of opportunity and abject appearance. The themes illustrate how the masculine symbolic order shapes and constrains women elite leaders' social relations with other women. We conclude that raising consciousness to intra-gender micro-violence between women is important as a means of disruption; to facilitate women and men's acceptance of intra-gender differences between women; and to open up opportunities and possibilities for women in organizations.