This study used Zohar‟s (2000) multi-level model of climate to examine the extent to which shared perceptions of workplace civility climate relate to teacher job satisfaction, affective commitment, and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB-abuse) towards other teachers. Workplace civility climate is defined as employee perceptions of how management uses policies, procedures, and practices to maintain a civil workplace. An online-survey was used to assess a cross-sectional sample of K-12 teachers (N = 2222) nested in 207 schools in a large US school district. There was adequate agreement among teacher perceptions of school civility climate for aggregation and between-group variance of civility climate among schools. The results of hierarchical linear models revealed school-level civility climate perceptions were significantly negatively associated with lower levels of teacher experienced incivility, CWB-abuse and associated with higher levels job satisfaction and affective commitment, thus supporting four out of five hypotheses. However, school-level civility climate did not function as a moderator of the relationship between a teacher‟s experience of incivility and acts of CWB-abuse towards other teachers. The findings of this study provide evidence that shared perceptions of civility climate are associated with higher levels of individual-level employee well-being.

Comment vivre ensemble ? Molière nous divertit à la fois en peignant les mœurs de son temps et en donnant à réfléchir à cette question. La civilité est une de ses réponses. Elle fleurit au XVIIe siècle, où les « honnêtes gens » suivent les traités qui enseignent les bonnes manières et cherchent à plaire et à rendre la société mondaine plus raffinée. La civilité camoufle délibérément les différences entre les personnes et les rangs, et donne délicatement une place à tout le monde dans la société. Mais cette civilité est en même temps dénoncée comme une forme d’hypocrisie et comme un masque qui dissimule la violence. Peut-on mieux vivre ensemble en refusant d’adopter ce comportement civil ? En principe, la civilité doit servir à éviter le recours à la violence. Mais civilité et violence peuvent aussi se rejoindre, car la violence n’est pas forcément physique : elle peut prendre la forme d’agressions verbales ou morales, de moqueries et de discriminations. Notre objectif est donc avant tout de comprendre ce en quoi consistent civilité et violence par le truchement des personnages de Molière, puis d’analyser les rapports que la civilité entretient avec la violence, et enfin de découvrir la proposition de Molière pour mieux vivre ensemble en couple et en société. / How to live together? Molière entertains us by depicting the customs of his age and by giving pause to reflect on this issue. Civility is one of his answers. It bloomed in France during the 17th century when the "honnête homme" complied with the rules of guide books teaching good manners and strove to please and make the smart society more refined. Civility deliberately conceals the differences between people and ranks, and delicately includes everyone in society. Meanwhile civility is denounced as a form of hypocrisy and as a mask concealing violence. Could we live better together by rejecting this civil behavior? Civility ought to be used to avoiding violence. But civility and violence can overlap as well, as violence is not necessarily physical violence: it can also result in verbal and moral abuse, derision and discrimination. The aim of this dissertation is to first understand what civility and violence involve through the characters of Molière, then to analyze the relation between civility and violence, and eventually to find out Molière’s insights to better live together as couples and as a society.