Assessing Workgroup Norms for Civility: The Development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief
- 1.5k Downloads
This research describes the development and validation of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief (CNQ-B), a 4-item measure designed to assess workgroup climate for civility. Climate for civility is defined as employee perceptions of norms supporting respectful treatment among workgroup members.
Five samples (N = 2,711) of adult employees, including two from distinct organizations and three from multiple organizations, responded to the CNQ-B and additional measures.
Evidence for the internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity of the CNQ-B was observed. Additionally, evidence for the criterion-related and incremental validity of the CNQ-B was demonstrated as it was a significant predictor of later-assessed incivility experiences and accounted for significant variability in work attitudes beyond incivility experiences and related measures.
The CNQ-B is a psychometrically sound instrument despite being composed of only four items. The CNQ-B can be used by researchers and practitioners alike to assess climate for civility, to study climate for civility as a precursor to incivility experiences, and to target workgroups that could benefit from interventions (e.g., training) to enhance civility and reduce incivility.
This is one of the first studies to conduct a rigorous psychometric assessment of a measure of workgroup climate for civility that is grounded in theory and research on workplace civility and incivility. At four items, the CNQ-B is the shortest assessment tool currently available that is designed for this purpose.
KeywordsWorkplace incivility Workplace civility Workplace norms Climate Scale development
This research was supported in part by Grant Number 5T01OH008610-07 awarded to Vicki Magley from CDC-NIOSH. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Bennett, R. J., Aquino, K., Reed, A., & Thau, S. (2005). The normative nature of employee deviance and the impact of moral identity. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 107–125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire: Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mervis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.Google Scholar
- Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New Brunswick, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Gill, M. J., & Sypher, B. D. (2009). Workplace incivility and organizational trust. In P. Lutgen-Sandvik & B. D. Sypher (Eds.), Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 53–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Haugh (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199–267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Google Scholar
- Jex, S. M., Geimer, J. L. B., Clark, O., Guidroz, A. M., & Yugo, J. E. (2010). Challenges and recommendations in the measurement of workplace incivility. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace behavior (pp. 239–271). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Jöreskob, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.5: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Meterko, M., Osatuke, K., Mohr, D., Warren, N., & Dyrenforth, S. (2007, August). Civility: The development and psychometric assessment of a survey measure. In M. Nagy (Moderator), Measuring and assessing workplace civility: Do “nice” organizations finish first? Symposium presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: Not time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18.Google Scholar
- Porath, C. L., Shapiro, D. L., & Duffy, M. K. (2004, August). When does perceived incivility lead to production deviance? A test of a systemwide perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its manifestations, and its causes. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 3–27.Google Scholar
- Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002). Online panels for social science research: An introduction to the Study Response project (Technical report no. 13001; www.studyresponse.com). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar