We know incivility in organizations is costly and widespread. We also know there are effective solutions developed and ready to implement, so why are we not making headway in academia? The discussion in the focal article (Cortina, Cortina, & Cortina, Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) sheds light on this—the sensitive debate of academic freedom and free speech. Our stance is this: Although it may be an individual’s right to be rude and abrasive, academic organizations must recognize and communicate that this behavior is unwelcome and impedes performance. What organization continually tolerates behavior that allows for performance decrements, lower satisfaction, burnout, and reduced commitment? Academia needs to start “regulating rude.” In order to have success with this, we need all of the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology interventions and more. But first, we need to step back and take the “10,000-foot view.”
We argue here that the focal article’s proposed interventions are largely focused on the individual (i.e., micro) level (e.g., assessments of interpersonal citizenship, codes of conduct, rewards, and training), which alone will not create the kind of sustained change required to truly “regulate rude” in academia. We write this commentary from our lens as management faculty (multiple I-O psychologists by training) working in a business school. We absolutely concur that I-O psychology tools can undoubtedly advance civil workplace behaviors. By the same token, we suggest that frameworks from our friends in the field of management may offer unique insights to the pervasive and pernicious challenge of addressing uncivil behaviors in academia.
In order to affect more widespread and long-term change, we suggest an earnest and authentic focus on the organizational (i.e., macrolevel) design of today’s academic institution. We propose pushing toward organic structures that can be responsive to the dynamic nature of change in our society—interpersonal and technological alike. Employing contingency theory (cf., Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001) in order to examine and redesign structures may help leaders address incivility at the macro level. Specifically, we suggest that regulating rude must begin with academic leaders at the highest levels redesigning academic institutions in consideration of the principles of integration, decentralization, and mutual adjustment in order to open the doors for microlevel solutions to be both effective and efficient, and sustained for the long term.
Macrolevel design challenges that drive organic structures
In order for organizations to be efficient and effective, leaders should continually evaluate their design to ensure their choices result in the desired structure—mechanistic or organic. Specifically, we outline three design challenges (differentiation vs. integration, centralization vs. decentralization, and standardization vs. mutual adjustment) that result in mechanistic or organic structures (cf., Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). We write to urge university administrators and academicians to make decisions (e.g., unit organization, college structural, or reporting relationships/accountability) that drive organic structures in order to create greater opportunities for the success of microlevel interventions to combat incivility.
First, there is a design challenge of balancing differentiation and integration whereby an organization makes decisions as to how to allocate resources to tasks in order to achieve goals (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). Universities are typically designed to be horizontally differentiated by function for both faculty (e.g., art history, management, math, psychology, etc.) and staff (e.g., academic affairs, student affairs, finance, human resources, development etc.) roles, allowing for a specialized and productive workforce. The challenge of this type of design for combating incivility is that staff and faculty alike operate in silos and have limited direct contact. The silo effect is likely exacerbated for faculty who fall victim to the “star culture” discussed in the focal article. The main consequence of this silo effect is little cross-functional communication at the lower levels. For example, the math department may be making strides through one intervention (i.e., civility training), but if this successful intervention is not scaled up to reach across functional lines and involve faculty from other departments, then it does little to nothing in combating incivility or laying cultural foundations for the university at large. Similarly, faculty and staff often do not interact on a regular basis, in part due to their specialized roles but also arguably in due to a perceived hierarchy where faculty are “above” staff. This is precisely an area where enhanced contact and communication (i.e., an organizational design choice for integration) will create an environment where micro-interventions (i.e., scaled up training) will have greater saliency and relevancy to day-to-day work, and hence a greater likelihood of evidencing success for business units and the university at large.
Universities are often vertically differentiated such that authority rests at the most senior levels (i.e., deans, provost, and president). The challenge of this design for combating incivility is that the provost often serves as the only linkage between academic and student affairs, whereas the president often serves as the only linkage between line and staff roles. University leaders may attempt to correct and therefore institute integrating mechanisms such as an ombudsman (i.e., “impartial” liaison role) or task forces. Unfortunately, we are all safe in admitting such solutions are often largely ineffective. As an illustration, task forces are often utilized as a mechanism for senior leadership—simply put —to “punt” contentious issues or feign input from the university community when the true power and decision-making authority rests, and perhaps should rest, with the most senior leaders. After all, leaders are responsible for creating a culture of civility. We offer more on this issue when we discuss centralization versus decentralization below.
Second, there is a design challenge of balancing centralization and decentralization (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013) wherein universities are typically highly centralized, retaining decision-making authority and power at the highest levels. A key problem of centralizing decision-making authority is attrition; simply put, leaders leave. The average tenure for university presidents is on the decline from 8.5 years in 2006 to 6.5 years in 2011 (Thomason, Reference Thomason2018), and the average for a business school dean is even less, as reported in AACSB CareerConnection.Footnote 1 As we often attribute to Peter Drucker, “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” so the revolving door of leadership who hold the true decision-making authority makes it difficult to be responsive to the changing needs of the organization. Newly welcomed senior leaders, despite longevity in their career, are likely hesitant to authorize changes that may not appeal to the varied, influential constituents. Moreover, there is the classic management issue of the “folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B” (Kerr, Reference Kerr1975), where senior leaders are likely most worried about revenue (i.e., enrollment, fundraising), and therefore focus their efforts, attention, and decisions on such pressing money matters. Meanwhile, such leaders fail to see the long-term benefits (i.e., ROI) of addressing the consequences of pervasive incivility in academia (cf., Pearson & Porath, Reference Pearson and Porath2005). Alas, the pressure to deliver results (i.e., increased revenue) with limited time and other resources quickly disincentivizes senior leaders to prioritize what is often perceived as a “soft” issue. Instead, they simply brush the issue aside while believing that they will have time to address it later. However, later often never comes.
We acknowledge full decentralization of authority may not yield all of the progress we seek on redressing incivility, but we believe leaning in this direction has value. For example, incivility in academic programs can produce decreased enrollment or negative feedback (Marchiondo, Marchiondo, & Lasiter, Reference Marchiondo, Marchiondo and Lasiter2010). Decentralizing power would allow for greater department- or program-level regulation of incivility. In this case, targets and observers could bring the behavior to the chair, who would be empowered to immediately trigger action—action that has “teeth” because the authority to deal with such situations could be delegated to those leaders who can have an immediate and positive impact. Without decentralization of authority to leaders of departments or programs to manage incivility, we essentially have passive management by exception where only the most egregious, offensive acts of incivility garner the attention of senior leaders—well after the fact. To be fair, senior leaders are not to receive all of the blame, as according to a study reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education, deans have 168 different duties (Butin, Reference Butin2016), making it justifiable that uncivil behaviors do not rise to the top of their to-do lists. However, we argue it may be a priority of a lower-level leader in order to foster the collegiality that drives productivity.
Third, and finally, there is a design challenge of balancing standardization and mutual adjustment (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). Universities have a long history of favoring standardization, adhering to policies and procedures for largely every decision. About 25% of all faculty and staff in U.S. colleges and universities are in a union or are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (Cassell & Halaseh, Reference Cassell and Halaseh2014). There are several very real consequences of this mechanistic design. First, standardization through reliance on policies and procedure can stifle well-intentioned grassroots efforts to combat incivility (i.e., normative conversations or informal agreements among disciplines or subgroups). Second, institutional procedures often handcuff leaders who aspire to effect change by rewarding civility (punishing incivility) or using personal judgment in determining when to intervene in uncivil exhibitions. Third, and finally, standardization can slow down formal efforts that may redress incivility. After all, we suggest that polices and standardization seem to prioritize an individual’s freedom of speech more than others’ right to work in a civil environment.
For example, imagine there is consensus among faculty in a department to introduce “civility” as a criterion in the annual performance evaluation, but the policy governing the annual performance evaluation process requires that faculty have 1 full year’s notice before any change may go into effect. This means that even if there is consensus and desire to include civility as a criterion in January 2020, faculty would not receive reward (punishment) until the 2021 evaluation, which is, in fact, submitted in January 2022 for the past calendar year—approximately 2 years from when reaching consensus. One may argue the department should exert mutual adjustment and simply agree to move forward with this decision by making the change effective immediately. However, yet another policy reads that this department and chair would be in violation of policy and therefore subject to grievance. So, instead of progress in changing the rewards structure to encourage civil behavior immediately, the environment—by virtue of standardization—forces maintenance of the status quo. The consequences of the status quo now potentially include that targets of the incivility choose withdrawal or voluntary turnover—both of which are costly and negatively impact workgroup and organizational culture, not to mention individual, team, and organizational performance. Herein lies the problem of standardization. In sum, research tells us that fostering shared norms and rewarding civil (punishing uncivil) behaviors are steps toward combating incivility (Porath & Pearson, Reference Porath and Pearson2013).Yet, until universities—and university leaders—make the shift from over-reliance on policies and procedures to allow for more fluid agreements that respond to contemporary challenges, we will be continually held back from achieving this goal.
Conclusion
Universities have historically maintained and promoted mechanistic structures stifling the effectiveness of I-O interventions to combat incivility. To address these challenges, we suggest that microlevel interventions discussed in the focal article are strategically nested within macrolevel design changes that lean toward the creation of organic university structures that support long-term change. In other words, we believe I-O psychologists have the expertise to offer practical solutions to combat incivility, but these need to be intentionally designed and implemented to drive changes toward the desired organic structure through the principles of integration, decentralization, and mutual adjustment. We offer—briefly and as food for thought—suggested practical pathways to create structures whereby micro-interventions would be more successful in combating incivility.
With regard to the principle of integration, we advocate for enhanced, meaningful contact and communication across silos (e.g., tenured vs. tenure-track, faculty vs. staff, discipline, etc.). This could be as simple as enhanced information sharing across disciplines/departments, creating opportunity for increased understanding of how resources are allocated and what initiatives are supported in areas of the organization (i.e., university). Or, this could be as extreme as those virtual “centers” that are made to cross disciplines. Why not re-organize where engineers are walking by and working next to their colleagues in business, psychology, English, and computer science? Regardless of the approach, universities should make strides in creating structural changes to foster integration. A practical starting point drawing from the principle of decentralization is to create leadership structures that empower those with the capacity to create meaningful change in culture and climate. In effect, pass the baton of responsibility—and hence rewards and punishments—to department or program levels in order to regulate incivility. For the senior leaders, authorize and support the integration of civility as a criterion in performance management systems across all levels. Taken together, these two interventions naturally foster new norms or reset norms that shift from over-reliance on policies and procedures to encouraging and rewarding behaviors that promote building relationships that span unit boundaries, creating additional synergies to drive success.
We all know well from contingency theory (Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001) there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for pushing organic structures in academia. Furthermore, we appreciate that our suggestions push—and perhaps threaten—the comfortable environment of academicians. Yet, 2019 is markedly different in myriad ways from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s—and even 2010. Overall then, university leaders should be bold in breaking the frame of the traditional, bureaucratic structure of the university, carefully and thoughtfully taking a macro perspective in combating incivility in academia. We reiterate it is through organizational redesign that the gates open for I-O psychology tools to be effective and efficient at resolving incivility and “regulating rude” in academia.
You have
Access
We know incivility in organizations is costly and widespread. We also know there are effective solutions developed and ready to implement, so why are we not making headway in academia? The discussion in the focal article (Cortina, Cortina, & Cortina, Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) sheds light on this—the sensitive debate of academic freedom and free speech. Our stance is this: Although it may be an individual’s right to be rude and abrasive, academic organizations must recognize and communicate that this behavior is unwelcome and impedes performance. What organization continually tolerates behavior that allows for performance decrements, lower satisfaction, burnout, and reduced commitment? Academia needs to start “regulating rude.” In order to have success with this, we need all of the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology interventions and more. But first, we need to step back and take the “10,000-foot view.”
We argue here that the focal article’s proposed interventions are largely focused on the individual (i.e., micro) level (e.g., assessments of interpersonal citizenship, codes of conduct, rewards, and training), which alone will not create the kind of sustained change required to truly “regulate rude” in academia. We write this commentary from our lens as management faculty (multiple I-O psychologists by training) working in a business school. We absolutely concur that I-O psychology tools can undoubtedly advance civil workplace behaviors. By the same token, we suggest that frameworks from our friends in the field of management may offer unique insights to the pervasive and pernicious challenge of addressing uncivil behaviors in academia.
In order to affect more widespread and long-term change, we suggest an earnest and authentic focus on the organizational (i.e., macrolevel) design of today’s academic institution. We propose pushing toward organic structures that can be responsive to the dynamic nature of change in our society—interpersonal and technological alike. Employing contingency theory (cf., Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001) in order to examine and redesign structures may help leaders address incivility at the macro level. Specifically, we suggest that regulating rude must begin with academic leaders at the highest levels redesigning academic institutions in consideration of the principles of integration, decentralization, and mutual adjustment in order to open the doors for microlevel solutions to be both effective and efficient, and sustained for the long term.
Macrolevel design challenges that drive organic structures
In order for organizations to be efficient and effective, leaders should continually evaluate their design to ensure their choices result in the desired structure—mechanistic or organic. Specifically, we outline three design challenges (differentiation vs. integration, centralization vs. decentralization, and standardization vs. mutual adjustment) that result in mechanistic or organic structures (cf., Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). We write to urge university administrators and academicians to make decisions (e.g., unit organization, college structural, or reporting relationships/accountability) that drive organic structures in order to create greater opportunities for the success of microlevel interventions to combat incivility.
First, there is a design challenge of balancing differentiation and integration whereby an organization makes decisions as to how to allocate resources to tasks in order to achieve goals (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). Universities are typically designed to be horizontally differentiated by function for both faculty (e.g., art history, management, math, psychology, etc.) and staff (e.g., academic affairs, student affairs, finance, human resources, development etc.) roles, allowing for a specialized and productive workforce. The challenge of this type of design for combating incivility is that staff and faculty alike operate in silos and have limited direct contact. The silo effect is likely exacerbated for faculty who fall victim to the “star culture” discussed in the focal article. The main consequence of this silo effect is little cross-functional communication at the lower levels. For example, the math department may be making strides through one intervention (i.e., civility training), but if this successful intervention is not scaled up to reach across functional lines and involve faculty from other departments, then it does little to nothing in combating incivility or laying cultural foundations for the university at large. Similarly, faculty and staff often do not interact on a regular basis, in part due to their specialized roles but also arguably in due to a perceived hierarchy where faculty are “above” staff. This is precisely an area where enhanced contact and communication (i.e., an organizational design choice for integration) will create an environment where micro-interventions (i.e., scaled up training) will have greater saliency and relevancy to day-to-day work, and hence a greater likelihood of evidencing success for business units and the university at large.
Universities are often vertically differentiated such that authority rests at the most senior levels (i.e., deans, provost, and president). The challenge of this design for combating incivility is that the provost often serves as the only linkage between academic and student affairs, whereas the president often serves as the only linkage between line and staff roles. University leaders may attempt to correct and therefore institute integrating mechanisms such as an ombudsman (i.e., “impartial” liaison role) or task forces. Unfortunately, we are all safe in admitting such solutions are often largely ineffective. As an illustration, task forces are often utilized as a mechanism for senior leadership—simply put —to “punt” contentious issues or feign input from the university community when the true power and decision-making authority rests, and perhaps should rest, with the most senior leaders. After all, leaders are responsible for creating a culture of civility. We offer more on this issue when we discuss centralization versus decentralization below.
Second, there is a design challenge of balancing centralization and decentralization (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013) wherein universities are typically highly centralized, retaining decision-making authority and power at the highest levels. A key problem of centralizing decision-making authority is attrition; simply put, leaders leave. The average tenure for university presidents is on the decline from 8.5 years in 2006 to 6.5 years in 2011 (Thomason, Reference Thomason2018), and the average for a business school dean is even less, as reported in AACSB CareerConnection.Footnote 1 As we often attribute to Peter Drucker, “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” so the revolving door of leadership who hold the true decision-making authority makes it difficult to be responsive to the changing needs of the organization. Newly welcomed senior leaders, despite longevity in their career, are likely hesitant to authorize changes that may not appeal to the varied, influential constituents. Moreover, there is the classic management issue of the “folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B” (Kerr, Reference Kerr1975), where senior leaders are likely most worried about revenue (i.e., enrollment, fundraising), and therefore focus their efforts, attention, and decisions on such pressing money matters. Meanwhile, such leaders fail to see the long-term benefits (i.e., ROI) of addressing the consequences of pervasive incivility in academia (cf., Pearson & Porath, Reference Pearson and Porath2005). Alas, the pressure to deliver results (i.e., increased revenue) with limited time and other resources quickly disincentivizes senior leaders to prioritize what is often perceived as a “soft” issue. Instead, they simply brush the issue aside while believing that they will have time to address it later. However, later often never comes.
We acknowledge full decentralization of authority may not yield all of the progress we seek on redressing incivility, but we believe leaning in this direction has value. For example, incivility in academic programs can produce decreased enrollment or negative feedback (Marchiondo, Marchiondo, & Lasiter, Reference Marchiondo, Marchiondo and Lasiter2010). Decentralizing power would allow for greater department- or program-level regulation of incivility. In this case, targets and observers could bring the behavior to the chair, who would be empowered to immediately trigger action—action that has “teeth” because the authority to deal with such situations could be delegated to those leaders who can have an immediate and positive impact. Without decentralization of authority to leaders of departments or programs to manage incivility, we essentially have passive management by exception where only the most egregious, offensive acts of incivility garner the attention of senior leaders—well after the fact. To be fair, senior leaders are not to receive all of the blame, as according to a study reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education, deans have 168 different duties (Butin, Reference Butin2016), making it justifiable that uncivil behaviors do not rise to the top of their to-do lists. However, we argue it may be a priority of a lower-level leader in order to foster the collegiality that drives productivity.
Third, and finally, there is a design challenge of balancing standardization and mutual adjustment (Jones, Reference Jones and Jones2013). Universities have a long history of favoring standardization, adhering to policies and procedures for largely every decision. About 25% of all faculty and staff in U.S. colleges and universities are in a union or are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (Cassell & Halaseh, Reference Cassell and Halaseh2014). There are several very real consequences of this mechanistic design. First, standardization through reliance on policies and procedure can stifle well-intentioned grassroots efforts to combat incivility (i.e., normative conversations or informal agreements among disciplines or subgroups). Second, institutional procedures often handcuff leaders who aspire to effect change by rewarding civility (punishing incivility) or using personal judgment in determining when to intervene in uncivil exhibitions. Third, and finally, standardization can slow down formal efforts that may redress incivility. After all, we suggest that polices and standardization seem to prioritize an individual’s freedom of speech more than others’ right to work in a civil environment.
For example, imagine there is consensus among faculty in a department to introduce “civility” as a criterion in the annual performance evaluation, but the policy governing the annual performance evaluation process requires that faculty have 1 full year’s notice before any change may go into effect. This means that even if there is consensus and desire to include civility as a criterion in January 2020, faculty would not receive reward (punishment) until the 2021 evaluation, which is, in fact, submitted in January 2022 for the past calendar year—approximately 2 years from when reaching consensus. One may argue the department should exert mutual adjustment and simply agree to move forward with this decision by making the change effective immediately. However, yet another policy reads that this department and chair would be in violation of policy and therefore subject to grievance. So, instead of progress in changing the rewards structure to encourage civil behavior immediately, the environment—by virtue of standardization—forces maintenance of the status quo. The consequences of the status quo now potentially include that targets of the incivility choose withdrawal or voluntary turnover—both of which are costly and negatively impact workgroup and organizational culture, not to mention individual, team, and organizational performance. Herein lies the problem of standardization. In sum, research tells us that fostering shared norms and rewarding civil (punishing uncivil) behaviors are steps toward combating incivility (Porath & Pearson, Reference Porath and Pearson2013).Yet, until universities—and university leaders—make the shift from over-reliance on policies and procedures to allow for more fluid agreements that respond to contemporary challenges, we will be continually held back from achieving this goal.
Conclusion
Universities have historically maintained and promoted mechanistic structures stifling the effectiveness of I-O interventions to combat incivility. To address these challenges, we suggest that microlevel interventions discussed in the focal article are strategically nested within macrolevel design changes that lean toward the creation of organic university structures that support long-term change. In other words, we believe I-O psychologists have the expertise to offer practical solutions to combat incivility, but these need to be intentionally designed and implemented to drive changes toward the desired organic structure through the principles of integration, decentralization, and mutual adjustment. We offer—briefly and as food for thought—suggested practical pathways to create structures whereby micro-interventions would be more successful in combating incivility.
With regard to the principle of integration, we advocate for enhanced, meaningful contact and communication across silos (e.g., tenured vs. tenure-track, faculty vs. staff, discipline, etc.). This could be as simple as enhanced information sharing across disciplines/departments, creating opportunity for increased understanding of how resources are allocated and what initiatives are supported in areas of the organization (i.e., university). Or, this could be as extreme as those virtual “centers” that are made to cross disciplines. Why not re-organize where engineers are walking by and working next to their colleagues in business, psychology, English, and computer science? Regardless of the approach, universities should make strides in creating structural changes to foster integration. A practical starting point drawing from the principle of decentralization is to create leadership structures that empower those with the capacity to create meaningful change in culture and climate. In effect, pass the baton of responsibility—and hence rewards and punishments—to department or program levels in order to regulate incivility. For the senior leaders, authorize and support the integration of civility as a criterion in performance management systems across all levels. Taken together, these two interventions naturally foster new norms or reset norms that shift from over-reliance on policies and procedures to encouraging and rewarding behaviors that promote building relationships that span unit boundaries, creating additional synergies to drive success.
We all know well from contingency theory (Donaldson, Reference Donaldson2001) there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for pushing organic structures in academia. Furthermore, we appreciate that our suggestions push—and perhaps threaten—the comfortable environment of academicians. Yet, 2019 is markedly different in myriad ways from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s—and even 2010. Overall then, university leaders should be bold in breaking the frame of the traditional, bureaucratic structure of the university, carefully and thoughtfully taking a macro perspective in combating incivility in academia. We reiterate it is through organizational redesign that the gates open for I-O psychology tools to be effective and efficient at resolving incivility and “regulating rude” in academia.