Cortina, Cortina, and Cortina’s (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) focal article highlights the tensions between encouraging civility in academia and historically accepted expectations of academic freedom. As industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists, our field has a great deal to offer in unpacking this tension through the lens of research. The negative effects of workplace incivility are well known, as Cortina et al. point out, along with the effects of more severe forms of workplace mistreatment, such as bullying and workplace aggression. In the following paragraphs, I elaborate on several avenues of research ripe for further exploration that were initially suggested by Cortina et al. Power, in particular, appears as one aspect worth further exploration in the role of civility (and incivility) in the academy.

Workplace incivility scholars have previously highlighted the role of power in incivility, along with the need to explicitly examine how power interacts with uncivil behaviors to predict negative outcomes. Though numerous definitions of power have been offered, for the purposes of this commentary, power is defined as “an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments” (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Reference Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson2003, p. 265). Drawing on psychological theories of power, this power is seen as relative because the extent to which others perceive those given resources as valuable is a critical component of whether or not an individual actually holds power. Several sources of power have been identified, including structural power, resource control, and network centrality (Astley & Sachdeva, Reference Astley and Sachdeva1984). Power has been associated with a range of psychological and behavioral outcomes, including displays of anger (Tiedens, Reference Tiedens, Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Hartel2000), self-serving attributions (Kipnis, Reference Kipnis1972), subordinate derogation (Georgesen & Harris, Reference Georgesen and Harris2000), and action-oriented behavior (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, Reference Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee2003). Recent research on workplace incivility has begun to examine the role of power, though more remains to be done in this realm. Relevant work will be reviewed in the following paragraphs, along with recommendations for future work.

Hershcovis (Reference Hershcovis2011) suggested exploring power as a moderator of the effects of workplace aggression in a review aimed at distinguishing several related constructs in the workplace mistreatment literature. In responding to this call, follow-up research highlighted that victims’ embarrassment is strengthened when the perpetrator of workplace incivility is powerful (Hershcovis, Ogunfowora, Reich, & Christie, Reference Hershcovis, Ogunfowora, Reich and Christie2017). This lens typically views the perpetrator as holding power, whereas the victim is often of lower status. Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) suggest that those in power may be likely to use the label of “incivility” to punish or discredit those who disagree with them or otherwise present a “problematic” voice. This, in turn, would flip the power divide on its head, presumably making the “victim” of incivility here more powerful, whereas the “perpetrator” in turn is of lower status. The current state of the workplace incivility literature offers much less in the way of understanding this direction of workplace incivility. This line of questioning also runs the risk of furthering the victim precipitation view of workplace incivility, which has faced criticism for the focus on characteristics of victims that may invite acts of workplace mistreatment. In this event, however, it may be worthwhile to explore the characteristics of victims—power included—that may increase their likelihood of perceiving behavior as uncivil.

A range of methods available to I-O psychologists could help to shed light on this area. Although individuals in positions of power are unlikely to readily admit that they have labeled someone’s behavior as “uncivil” or “aggressive” in an attempt to silence that individual, qualitative interviews may be useful in understanding the choice to label an academic’s behavior as uncivil or aggressive. In line with psychological theories of power, the label of uncivil may be wielded by those in power precisely when the accusation can be tied to a withdrawal of resources (e.g., a job offer, tenure, etc.), drawing on structural sources of power. Further, the approach-inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., Reference Keltner, Gruenfeld and Anderson2003) suggests that power makes people feel independent of others, leading to egocentric views and the devaluing of others’ perspectives (Kipnis, Reference Kipnis1972). Examining how the accuser defines the “victim” in these instances—themselves individually or the institution as a whole (i.e., in this case, the institution of higher learning in which the case takes place)—would be one potentially illuminating way of testing this theory in the context of higher education. Does the victim see him/herself as an agent of the organization, seeking to protect the university from further damage caused by such uncivil behavior? The answers to this question may help to further understand what types of behaviors are called out as uncivil in the academy: Are they truly what I-O psychologists might define as workplace incivility, or rather behaviors meant to signal disagreement or a challenge to the status quo? Or rather, how often are these behaviors co-occurring?

Second, experimental methods would be useful for increasing the internal validity of our assumptions about the role of power and incivility. Interesting experimental work in this area has already identified that those with more power are more likely to intervene when witnessing workplace incivility (Hershcovis, Neville, Reich, Christie, Cortina, & Shan, Reference Hershcovis, Neville, Reich, Christie, Cortina and Shan2017). Particularly relevant to the current question, though, a recent day-level study found that on days when participants were exposed to an experimental condition that induced psychological power, they were in turn both more likely to perceive incivility as well as engage in abusive supervision (Foulk, Lanaj, Tu, Erez, & Archambeau, Reference Foulk, Lanaj, Tu, Erez and Archambeau2018). Foulk et al. (Reference Foulk, Lanaj, Tu, Erez and Archambeau2018) draw on social distance theory (Magee & Smith, Reference Magee and Smith2013) to understand why those in power may perceive higher levels of incivility. The social distance theory of power suggests that power is associated with increased psychological distance between those with power and those without, leading the powerful to engage in negative behaviors and evaluations of other. Researchers could also consider manipulating power and incivility in a controlled lab setting to better understand when neutral displays of disagreement or attempts to upset the status quo might be perceived as incivility by those in higher status positions. Given that lab-based experimental studies are unable to capture the ongoing relational dynamics between actors, it stretches the limits of external validity to apply these lab-based findings directly to the academic context of administrators and faculty members. However, this work may begin to shed light on situations in which the labels of incivility and calls for civility are used. In addition to using experimental studies, researchers may want to consider utilizing event-based diary studies in which participants are able to refer to a specific perpetrator. This design would allow researchers to more clearly capture the perpetrator’s perceived power relative to the victim, which could then directly be tested as one potential moderator of the effects of workplace incivility on work and well-being outcomes. An alternative method for capturing the role of power would be the critical incident technique (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, Reference Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson and Maglio2005). This latter method may be particularly useful in unpacking the role of power in high-profile cases of academic freedom (e.g., the withdrawal of Steven Salaita’s job offer at the University of Illinois and Urbana-Champaign) that have a lower base rate.

Additionally, Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) raise the important point that incivility may be used by those in power to label individuals who in some way disrupt the status quo. The same aforementioned methodologies could be useful for understanding when individuals engage in incivility as an act of social disobedience—particularly within higher education—in an effort to call attention to or right a social injustice. It is likely that power still plays an incredibly important role here as well: Do junior faculty members feel comfortable engaging in acts of civil disobedience that may be labeled as incivility, or is the structural power of tenure required to help increase their security in engaging in these acts? Relevant to this question is an article by Lawrence and Robinson (Reference Lawrence and Robinson2007) that suggests that employees’ engagement in various forms of workplace deviance can be viewed as organizational resistance to the enactment of power (i.e., influence, force, discipline, and domination). Although subsequent research has drawn on this work to argue for the association between abusive supervision and organizational deviance, Lawrence and Robinson’s original propositions—that specific forms of power may lead to specific forms of workplace deviance—remain largely untested. A secondary, related point worth mentioning here is Cortina et al.’s mention of the problem of “star culture” in allowing academic stars to engage in unchecked uncivil behavior. Given what we know about spirals of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, Reference Andersson and Pearson1999; Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Magley, Reference Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Magley2014), under what circumstances do other faculty respond to these bad actors with incivility of their own? Specifically, when and how might academic units engage in targeted acts of ostracism—itself an identified form of workplace mistreatment—as an attempt to punish a serial perpetrator of workplace incivility? Are these targeted acts of ostracism successful in reducing workplace incivility, or do they further perpetuate a problematic workplace? Should administrators become involved in punishing this behavior—and further, is it only the instigator that is punished for their incivility or those who have engaged in retaliatory incivility of their own? Star culture in and of itself may be the use of personal power gone wrong, personal power having been described as the freedom from others’ control (Overbeck & Park, Reference Overbeck and Park2001). The academic context of tenure may be particularly ripe for exploring the role of personal power and incivility.

As a third and final point, Cortina et al. (Reference Cortina, Cortina and Cortina2019) raise the possibility of examining training and intervention programs in higher education aimed at promoting civility. This is a critical need in our field and one that has the potential to serve a number of other organizational contexts as well. How prevalent are codes of civility within higher education? Are these implemented via top-down processes or co-created with faculty and administrators? How do faculty perceive such codes of civility? How are they implemented, and do they actually change enacted behaviors in the hallways of college campuses? Understanding the direct and indirect benefits of such interventions through rigorous evaluation methods is key. Do civility norms and direct civility interventions on college campuses reduce the prevalence of faculty incivility? It is possible that in addition to reducing workplace incivility, these civility-based interventions may also help reduce related negative workplace behaviors, including sexual harassment (Feldblum & Lipnic, Reference Feldblum and Lipnic2016; Walsh & Magley, Reference Walsh and Magley2019). Specific to the current discussion of power, Tost and Johnson (Reference Tost and Johnson2019) recently found that structural power can lead to prosocial behavior toward others via an increased sense of responsibility for subordinates and norms for the benevolent use of power. To the extent that civility interventions can help foster felt responsibility for subordinates and benevolent power norms, they may be able to decrease the likelihood of misuses of power and workplace incivility.