Workplace Incivility:Does it Matter in Asia?Arthur Yeung, China Europe ¡ntemationul Business School

Barbara Gnffin, University of Western Sydney

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support

of Ted Marusarz and Jo Reinhord at Hewitt Associates for

providing access to their extensive database from the "Best

Employers in Asia 2007" study.

Have you experienced

behaviors by others

thai moke you feel

oppressed, humiliated,

de-energized or belittled in the

workplace? How often? While the

incidence and impact of workplace

incivility have received increasing

attention in the U.S. and Europe,

very little research has been con-

ducted to understand the prevalence

and importance of such behaviors

in Asia. Drawing on an extensive

database of more than 1 16,000

participants from 412 organizations

in six countries and territories in the

region (China, Hong Kong, India,

Japan, Korea and Singapore),

we analyze and try to understand

uncivil behavior in the Asian work-

place by examining four basic

questions: how prevalent it is; how

it impacts employee engagement;

where it originates; and who is

most vulneroble.

14 PEOPLE Ä STRATEGY 3 1 . 3

We find that incivility exists widely in the six areas we examinedbut to different extents. It also has a major impact on employeeengagement, especially when the frequency reaches a certain thresh-old (i.e., once a month). Co-workers are more frequently perceivedto be a source of incivility than managers and senior leaders. Andfinally, employees who are male, in management, and have workedbeyond six months, tend to experience higher levels of incivility thanother employees.

INTRODUCTIONIn the last decade, researchers and corporate practitioners have

begun to pay attention to the issues of workplace incivility (i.e.,whether employees are mistreated with rudeness and socially under-mining behavior in their workplace) (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;Cortina et al., 2001; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Sutton, 2007).Many studies have documented the increasing prevalence of incivil-ity that threatens the dignity and self-esteem of employees in theworkplace as work pressures have increased due to factors such asreengineering, downsizing, budget cuts, productivity, and cycle timeimprovement; and as the workforce has become more diverse withgreater ethnic and language differences, different work styles inher-ent among various generations, and the increasing use of a contin-gent workforce. For instance, Cortina et al. (2001 ) reported in a U.S.study that up to 71% of respondents experienced acts of mistreat-ment at work over a five-year period. Sofietd and Salmond (2003)found that 91% of 461 nurses had experienced verbal abuse in themonth before the study was conducted, and physicians were themost frequent abusers. With the increase of portable communica-tions tools such as BlackBerries, incivility is conveyed in cyberspaceas well. A recent survey of 1,072 UK workers by the Dignity andWork Partnership found that one in five had been bullied throughe-mails (Dignity at Work, 2008).

We define incivility to be verbal and non-verbal behaviors thatmake people feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittledin the workplace—though other authors may label them in slightlydifferent terms like bullying (Zapf & Gross, 2001), interpersonalaggression (Glomb & Uao, 2003), or social undermining (Duffv,Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). In his recent hook The No Asshole Rule:Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't,(Sutton, 2007a) Stanford professor Robert Sutton simply labelsthose instigators of uncivil behavior as "jerks." Research has shownthat uncivil behavior not only leads to low job satisfaction, psy-chological stress, absenteeism, poor health, escalation of retaliatoryviolence, and higher employee turnover at an individual level. It alsoreveals that when tolerated or not constructively confronted, thereis potential damage to organizations through higher recruitmentand training costs, unhealthy and unproductive work climate, poorcustomer service, potential costs in litigation filed by victims or eveninstigators based on wrongful-termination claims (Sutton, 2007b;Cortina et al., 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Pearson et al., 2000).

Sutton (2007b) helps companies quantify tbe total costs of inci-vility (what he called "Total Costs of Jerks") by considering fullyits impact on the victims, witnesses, instigator, management, legaland human resource management costs, and negative work climate.When a Silicon Valley executive used Sutton's method to assess thetotal costs generated by a star salesperson due to bis "jerk" behav-ior, he estimated it to be US$160,000 per year. In the U.K., researchfrom the Department of Health Indicates that stress-induced sicknessdue to bullying is costing the economy around ¿1.3 billion a year(Dignity at Work, 2008).

While the incidence and impact of incivility is receiving some atten-tion in the U.S. and Europe, it is not much discussed and studied inAsia. Fueled by an acute shortage of leadership talent and highly skilledspecialists in many rapidly booming economies like China and India,the overriding concern for many companies focuses on how to attract,retain, and engage talent to execute aggressive growth aspirations in ahighly competitive environment (Yeung, Warner &c Rowley, 2008).

A counter to incivility may be found in the notion of "BestEmployers" popularized hy many consulting firms and businessmedia, like Hewitt Associates, Watson Wyatt, the Wall Street Journaland Fortune, among others. This idea has received widespread atten-tion in tbe Asian region as testified by the increasing number ofparticipating firms in the selection process. Employee engagement, animportant factor in identifying best employers and high-performingorganizations that achieve more positive business results, has becomean outcome that many companies strive to improve to win the talentwars in such a tight market. Measured on the basis of employee emo-tional and cognitive commitment to "stay" (remain in the company),"say" (speak positively about the organization), and "strive" (exertextra effort beyond at work for company success), employee engage-ment is found to have a major impact on performance outcomeslike retention, productivity, customer satisfaction, and total share-holder return (Fulmer, Gerhart, Scott, 2003; Bennett & Bell, 2004;Hewitt Associates, 2006). Given the widely recognized importanceof employee engagement in Asia, we examine workplace incivility inrelationship to employee engagement.

Drawing on an extensive database of more than 116,000 respon-dents from 412 organizations in six Asian countries or regions(please see Appendix 1 on the background information for the sam-ple find measures), we offer an overview understanding of incivilityin the Asian region by answering four fundamental questions:

1. To what extent does incivility exist in tbe Asian workplace?2. How does uncivil behavior impact employee engagement?3. What is the source of incivility (i.e., co-workers, managers, or

senior leaders)?4. Which employees are more vulnerable to uncivil behavior?

By systematically examining these questions based on an exten-sive database, we hope this article can contribute to human resourcemanagement in two ways:

1. Promote awareness of the incidence and importance of work-place incivility in Asia; and

2. Offer data for national benchmarking regarding the incidence ofincivility in six Asian countries and territories.

EXTENT OF WORKPLACE INCIVILITY IN ASIAIn this study, we asked employees to indicate the extent (from

" 1 " Never to "6" At least once a day) to which they had experi-enced four broad types of uncivil behavior in the last year from theirco-workers, managers, and senior leaders. The four types of uncivilbehavior included:

1. Made negative comments about you to others;2. Spoke to you in a rude or inappropriate manner;3. Questioned your judgment in your area of responsibility; and4. Excluded you from situations where you felt you should be

included.

Respondents were then grouped according to tbe frequency oftheir experience, from "none" to "high" incivility. Table I providesa description of each category.

PEOPLE & STRATEGY 3 1 . 3 15

TABLE 1

Extent of Incivility Experienced by Employees inSix Asian Countries/RegionsCategory

Never experienced anyoí the ioiir behaviors

Experienced at leastone of four behaviors,but none more thanonce or twice a year

Experienced at leastone oí tour behaviorsmonthly, hut none asoften as weekly

Experienced at least oneof four behaviors weeklyor more ("bullied")

Descriptive

None

Low

Moderate

High

China(N=33,937)

30%

5 1 %

14%

5%

Hong Kong(N=:7,439)

29%

42%

19%

10%

India(N=44,161)

19%

45%

20%

17%

Japan(N=4,304)

24%

40%

2 3 %

13%

Korea(N=8,342}

13%

4 1 %

3 1 %

15%

Singapore(N=10,320)

2 3 %

47%

18%

12%

Total Sample(N=l 16,986)

2 3 %

46%

19%

12%

Table 1 indicates that 77% of respondents from our databasereported that they have experienced at least one of four uncivilbehaviors from at least one of the sources (i.e., co-workers, manag-ers, senior leaders) in the last year. Such a finding reveals that inci-vility is quite prevalent in Asia and comparable to a study conduct-ed in the U.S. (Cortina et al., 2001). Twelve percent of respondentsreported that they experienced at least one such uncivil behaviorin the workplace every week while 19% and 46% of respondentsexperienced such behavior on a monthly and yearly basis respec-tively. This means that approximately one-third of employees regu-larly experienced uncivil behavior at least once a month, which is asubstantial proportion of the Asian workforce.

Interestingly enough, the level of incivility experienced byemployees varies significantly by country/region. For example.

while only 5% of respondents in China experienced a high level ofincivility (once a week), a much higher percentage of respondentsin India and Korea experienced similarly high levels of incivility(17% and 15% respectively). Additionally, 30% of respondents inChina reported that they never experienced any uncivil hehaviorcompared to only 13% in Korea. Respondents in China appear toexperience the lowest level of incivility in the sample. We helievesuch variations in the incidence of incivility may he explained partlyhy different work styles or behavior manifested in different cultures(e.g., a confrontational style vs. a harmonious or face-saving one;task-oriented vs. people-oriented; performance-driven vs. relation-ship driven). While work cultures in Mainland China are undergo-ing rapid changes, many Chinese still prefer harmony or face-savingto confrontation in the workplace, and are people and relationship

TABLE 2

Employee Engagement at Different Levels of Incivility in Six AsianCountries/Regions ''*Incivility Level

None

Low

Moderate

High

National Average on Engagement

China

73%

5 1 %

27%

30%

52%

Hong Kong

29%

42%

19%

10%

60%

India

19%

45%

20%

17%

70%

Japan

24%

40%

2 3 %

13%

40%

Korea

13%

4 1 %

3 1 %

15%

55%

Singapore

2 3 %

47%

18%

12%

69%

Total Sample

U%

46%

19%

12%

6 1 %

* This table reports percentage of employees engaged (i.e., % of respondents agreed or strongly agreed on engagement questions)

16 PEOPLE & STRATEGY 3 1 . 3

oriented rather than pure performance- or task-oriented. In a soci-ety like China where networks and guanxi (personal relationships}are important to getting things done, superiors and peers in generaltry not to offend and humiliate others in public. Such behaviorsare not only socially undesirable, but they also can sow seeds forpersonal doom in case the offender needs assistance, directly orIndirectly, from the offended person in the future.

IMPACT OF INCIVILITY ON EMPLOYEEENGAGEMENT

Employee engagement to an organization is affected by a widerange of factors, including rewards, development and career oppor-tunities, work assignments, company practices, quality of life, andpeople relationships {Bennett ôc Bell, 2004). We also believe thatwhether people are being treated with respect and dignity willaffect their commitment to remain with the company, speak posi-tively about it, and strive hard to contribute to its success. This isdemonstrated in award-winning companies like Mary Kay and theRitz-Carlton that have prioritized creating a work environmentwhere employees at all levels are expected to follow the GoldenRule and treat each other with respect and dignity (Yeiing, 2006).The "no jerks" rule at SuccessFactors has been equally successful(Sutton, 2ÛO7h). In contrast, when uncivil behavior is toleratedor is the accepted norm in a workplace, we think that employeecommitment to the organization is reduced.

Table 2 reports how the degree of employee engagement changesdepending on the level of incivility (i.e., none, low, moderate, andhigh) experienced by employees. We calculated the percentage ofemployees who "strongly agree" or "agree" that they intendedto stay with their organization, will speak positively about it,and strive hard at work. While the national average of engagedemployees varied among the different countries or regions (e.g.,70% of all employees from India were engaged compared to only40% in Japan), the pattern between different levels of incivility isconsistent across all countries or regions. The highest percentage ofengaged employees is always the group that never experiences anyof the four uncivil behaviors. The percentage of engaged employeesis a little lower for the group of employees who experience a lowlevel of uncivil behavior (i.e., once or twice a year). However, thepercentage of engaged employees drops sharply if the incivilityincreases to a moderate or high level (i.e., at least once a month oron a weekly basis).

There are two major implications from our analysis. First, inci-vility does affect employee engagement, as demonstrated by thesystematic changes in percentage of employee engagement at differ-ent levels of incivility. Second, the impact of incivility on employeeengagement, interestmgly enough, does not follow a linear rela-tionship in the Asian nations we examined. Employee engagementwill drop slightly in an environment of no to a low level of uncivilbehavior, but it will drop drastically if incivility is perceived at amoderate or high level. This clearly implies that employees aresomewhat "tolerant" when incivility occurs occasionally and ran-domly; say once or twice a year. However, when it becomes a regu-lar pattern that occurs on a monthly or weekly basis, such incivilityhas a major negative impact on employee engagement. This patternis consistent across the region.

SOURCES OF INCIVILITYTable 3 reports the sources of uncivil behaviors experienced by

respondents. Three sources of incivility are indicated based on the

TABLE 3

Source of Incivility byCountries/Regions ''"Cotintry/Region

China

Hong Kong

India

japan

Korea

Singapore

Total Sample

Totalincivility

1.40

1.54

1.66

1.47

1.71

1.6Ü

1.56

Co-workerincivility

1.51

1.68

1.74

1.67

1.88

1.77

1.73

Managerincivility

1.38

1.54

1.70

1.53

1.84

1.58

1.55

Leaderincivility

1.30

1.39

1.52

1.18

1.43

1.45

1.4Ü

l=Never, 2=Once or Twice a Year, 3=At Least Once a Month,4=At Least Once or Twice a Month, 5=At Least Once a week,6=At Least Once a Day

* The table reports mean scores calculated based on the average offour incivility behaviors experienced from different sources basedon the scale.

average incidence of the four uncivil behaviors experienced fromco-workers, managers, and senior leaders. We also calculated anaverage score for incivility from coworkers, managers, senior lead-ers, and a total score for incivility from all three sources.

While the levels of incivility experienced by respondents variesacross the region ¡consistent with previous findings), the sources ofincivility demonstrate a very consistent pattern in all countries andterritories, with co-workers being the highest source of incivility,followed by managers, and then senior leaders. There are severalpossible reasons why co-workers are the major source of incivility.First, in a regular workday, employees tend to interact with moreco-workers than they do mangers or senior leaders. Second, as co-workers or peers may be perceived as competitors for promotionsor resources, co-workers and peers may be more inclined (con-sciously or subconsciously) to belittle, isolate or be in conflict withtheir peers, Third, while co-workers need to work with each otherto get the job done, they don't have the authority to command oth-ers to support their work. As a result, it is potentially easier to berude either verbally or non-verbally when they are frustrated.

Although many studies have emphasized the importance ofdirect managers in affecting the satisfaction and retention ofemployees, co-workers, rather than managers, are the majorsources of workplace incivility. Thus they have major impacts onengagement, which, in turn, influences retention. Nevertheless,managers' impacts cannot be underestimated, since how theymanage their teams can influence the extent of incivility toleratedamong co-workers.

PEOPLE & STRATEGY 3 1 . 3 17

TARGETS OF INCIVILITYFinally, we examined which groups of employees experienced

higher levels of incivility. We looked at a wide range of factorsbased on employee demographics (e.g., age, education, job func-tion), and found that three employee characteristics offer the mostinteresting insights regarding workplace incivility. Table 4 illus-trates how incivility experienced by respondents varies by manage-ment level, gender, and tenure.

One of the most interesting findings in Table 4 is that frontlineemployees experienced significantly less incivility than managers. Infact, the data indicate a trend that tbe higher the level of manage-ment, the higher tbe level of incivility. Instead of treating each otherwith "gentlemen-like" behavior in executive suites, respondentsin management levels reported tbat they experienced more uncivilbehavior as tbey climbed up the corporate ladder. Power games,big egos, internal competition for scarce resources and promotionopportunities may contribute to higber incidences of incivility atmore senior level positions.

While some studies hypothesize that females may be moresensitive or perceptive to detect uncivil behavior than males(Montgomery, Kane, and Vance, 2004), our findings show tbatmales in Asia reported more incidences of incivility than females.We think this may occur partly due to socially defined sex stereo-types in many Asian countries that result in female colleagues beingtreated more nicely and gently. Another possible reason is that tbefinding may be related to management level rather than just gender.A supplementary analysis showed that males were more likely toassume positions at higher management levels which, as discussedbefore, are more likely to experience bigher levels of incivility. Tbisdeserves more research attention.

We also discovered an interesting relationship between years ofservice and incivility in this study. New employees witb less than

six months of service experienced significantly less incivility than"older" employees, from their co-workers, managers and seniorleaders. It appears that new employees enjoy a "honeymoon"period in the initial months of their employment. After the "hon-eymoon" period expires, employees experience similar levels ofincivility to their longer serving peers.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONSDrawn from an extensive database, our analyses reveal tbat

workplace incivility is a fairly prevalent pbenomenon in Asia.Approximately one-third of our respondents experienced moder-ate to high levels of incivility in their workplaces at least once amonth, although the incidence of incivility varies across countries.Furthermore, workplace incivility is found to have a systematicrelationship with employee engagement, as sbown by the decreasein employee engagement as the level of incivility increases, espe-cially from low to moderate/high levels. Co-workers, in comparisonwitb managers and senior leaders, are more likely to be a sourceof uncivil behaviors. Respondents at management levels, maleemployees, and employees with more than six months of serviceexperienced bigher incidences of incivility than otber employees.

If workplace incivility is a challenge that deserves managementattention, what can companies do about it? Robert Sutton {2007b)and Dignity at Work (2008) have provided detailed suggestions andadvice on how to reduce workplace incivility by 1) making explicitthe company's expectations and policies on uncivil behaviors, 2)demonstrating leadership commitment tbrough modeling goodbebaviors and confronting the "jerks" even if tbey are superstars, 3)biring, promoting, and firing people witb civility as one of tbe crite-rion, 4) providing training and specific guidelines to employees onhow to confront bullies and how to avoid being one, and 5) offeringchannels for employees to report and deal with uncivil behavior.

Incidence of Incivility Experienced by Different Employee Groups''"Pattern of Incivility Behaviors

Senior Management (N=2,Ü03)Report to Senior Management (N=4,923)Middle Management (N=14,67I)Team Leader (N=18,697)Senior Professional (N=16,037)Employee (N=47,845)

Male (N=71,685 )Female |N=34,239)

Tenure: less than 6 months (N= 10^45)Tenure: 6 months to 2 years (N=30,575)Tenure: 2 to 9 years (N=27,244)Tenure: 9 to 19 years (N=16,659)Tenure: More than 19 years (N=5,681)

Mean Scores

L68

1.631.601.581.571.51

1.601.47

1.441.541.581.591.58

Level of Significance

F= 81.67, p <.OO1

F = 27.25, p <.OOI

F = 54.45,p<.001

l=Never, 2=Once or Twice a Year, 3=At Least Once a Month, 4=At Least Once or Twice a Month, 5=At Least Once a Week, 6=At LeastOnce a Day

* The table reports mean scores calculated based on the average of four incivility behaviors experienced from all sources based on the scale.

18 PEOPLE & STRATEGY 3 1 , 3

of course, in all these endeavors, human resource professionals, inclose partnership with senior leaders, can p!ay major roles.

While the current research has answered some hasic questionsrelated to workplace incivihty in Asia, it also raises new questionsthat call for future research. For example, future research shouldfurther explore and examine why variation in incivility exists indifferent countries, whether uncivil behavior is culture-specificor generic {e.g., whether behavior considered uncivil in Anglo-American culture is similar to that in Chinese culture), whetherincivility can have more performance impact in specific types ofjohs or industries than others (e.g., work that requires strong team-work and collaboration, work that is knowledge intensive). It mightalso he interesting to determine if the data show differently if theresponse set is "I have observed this in my workplace" vs. "thishappened directly to me."

Through the joint efforts of corporate and academic worlds, wehope that workplace incivility can he reduced and a more positivework environment—the place where most people spend much oftheir time—can he cultivated. ..-- "' '^"" ' ,

REFERENCESAnderson, L. M., & C. M. Pearson (1999). Tit for Tat: The Spiraling Effect of Incivility-in the Workplace. Academy of Management Rei'iew, 24|.3), 452-471.

Bennett, M., & A. Bell ¡2004). Leadership Talent in Asia: How the Best EmployersDeliver Extraordinary Performance. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia)

Cortina, L. M.. V. J. Magley. J. H. Williams, & R. D. Langhout (2001 ). Incivility in theWorkplace: Incidence and Impact, journal of Occupational Health Psyclmlogy, 6( 1 ), 64-80.

Dignity at Work (2008). Website information from The Dignity- at Work Partnership,w w w. dign i tyatwork .org.

Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster, & M. Pagon (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace.Academy of Management Journal, 4.î(2), .331-351.

Fulme^ I. S., B. Gerhart, & K. S. Scott (2003). Are the 100 Best Better? An EmpiricalInvestigation of the Relationship Between Being a "Great Place to Work" and FirmPerfomance. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 965-^93.

Glomh, T. M., & H. Liao 12OO3¡. Interpersonal .Aggression in Work Groups: SocialInfluence, Reciprocal, and Individual Effects. Academy nf Management Journal, 46(4),486-496.

Hewitt Associates. (2006). The Evolving Link Between Business Results andF.ngagement. Lincolnshire, IL: Author.

Lim, S., & L. M. Cortina (2005). Interpersonal Mistreatment in the Workplace: TheInterface and Impact of Cieneral Incivility and Sexual Harassment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90(.3), 483-496.

Montgomery, K., K. Kane, 6c C M . Vante (20O4). Accounting for Differences in Normsof Respea: A Study of Assessment of Incivility- through the Lenses oí Race and Gender.Group & Organization Management, 19(1), 248-268.

Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson, & C. L. Porath (2000). Assessing and AttackingWorkplace Incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.

Pfeffec J. ( 1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First.Boston: HBS Press.

Sofield, L., & S. W. Salmond (2003). Workplace Violence. A Focus on Verbal Ahuse andIntent to Leave the Organisation. Orthopaedic Nursing, 22(4), 274-283.

Sutton, R, M. (2007a). The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace andSurviving One That Isn't. New York: Warner Business Books. Sutton, R. M. {2007b).Building the Civilized Workplace. McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 2, 30-39.

Yeung, A. (2006). Sening People Up for Success - How the Portman Ritz-Carlton HotelGets the Best from Its People. Human Resource Management Journal, 45, 267-275.

Yeung, A., M. Warner, Si C. Rowley (2008). (iuest Editor Notes: Growth andGlobalization-—How Human Resource Management Practices Evolve in Asia. ArthurYeung, W. M., Rowley C. (ed.). Special Iwue on "Human Resource Management inAsia-Pacific," Humait Resource Management Journal, Volume 47, Issue 1.

Zapf, D., &: C. Gross (2001). Conflia Escalation and Copitig with WorkplaceBullying: A Replication and Extension. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsycholog:,', 10(4), 497-522.

APPENDIX 1 :BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RESEARCH

Sample Size and DemographicsThe Hewitt's '̂ 2007 Best Employer" employee opinion survey

was completed hy individual employees of 412 participating orga-nizations in six Asian regions/countries. The study includes datafrom 116,986 respondents, 29% of whom worked in China; 13.6%in Hong Kong; 37.7% in India; 3.7% in Japan; 7.1 % in Korea; and8.8% in Singapore. There were more males (67.7%) than females(32.3%). Age was measured as a categorical variahle, with 51.1%of participants in the 25-34 years range, 24.5% in the 35-44 yearsrange, and 1.5% aged over 55 years. In terms of tenure, 64.2% ofthe sample had been employed in their current organization for fiveyears or less and 5.3% for 20 or more years. The majority (61.3%)described themselves as being either a non-managerial professionalor a team member; a further 32% said they were a team leader orin middle management, and 6.6% were either senior managementor reported to senior management. The 412 participating organiza-tions included those from both the public and private sectors, and"white" and "blue collar" workplaces.

MeasuresThe Best Employer Survey is administered both online and via

pen and paper. Examples of items are not provided due to com-mercial in-confidence requirements. However, scales are typical ofthose used widely in empirical research. Additional information isavailable at www.bestemployerstudy.com.• Incivility. Employees were asked to indicate the extent (from " 1 "

Never to "6" At least once a day) that they had experienced fourbroad types of incivility in the last year from their co-workers,managers, and senior leaders. The four types of uncivil behav-iors by instigators include: 1) made negative comments aboutyou to others; 2) spoke to you in a rude or inappropriate man-ner; 3) questioned your judgment in your area of responsibil-ity; 4) excluded you from situations where you felt you sh<iuldbe included. A mean score was calculated for incivility fromcoworkers, from managers, from senior leaders, and from allsources combined.

• Engagement. Employee engagement was assessed as the outcomemeasure. It was measured by six items. Responses were made ona 6-point Likert scale with (1 "strongly disagree"; 2 "disagree";3 "slightly disagree"; 4 "slightly agree"; 5 "agree"; 6 "stronglyagree"). Level of employee engagement is calculated hy the per-centage of employees who either "agree" or "strongly agree"with the "stay," "strive," and "say" behavior.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHESArthur Yeung is Associate Dean and Philips Chair Professor ofHuman Resource Management at China Europe InternationalBusiness School. Before his recent return to academia. Dr. Yeungserved as Corporate Vice-President and Chief HR Officer of AcerGroup—one of the world's top five PC companies.

Barbara Griffin is an organizational psychologist and seniorresearch fellow at the University of Western Sydney, Australia.Her areas of research include adaptive performance at work,selection, interpersonal mistreatment, and postretirement workand adjustment.

PEOPLE & STRATEGY 3 1 . 3