At the beginning of the 21st century, the idea and ideology of workforce and working relations have changed greatly towards liberalization and open communication. Despite these positive changes, the modern workplace is affected by such problems as incivility and distrust. With a minimum of laws and no meaningful corporate legislation in place, many of the approaches and behavior patterns used by modern employees are categorized as unethical, immoral, and, in many cases, illegal. With incivility, the question is what generates aggression and violence, what increases the use of certain kinds of misbehavior during certain situations?
If everything comes from a poor upbringing, where does incivility come from? And if we are prisoners of social relations, what does that mean? Something is behind social and personal relations–the issue is what, and how to gain access to equal and positive relations (Kramer, 2004). The act and motive of incivility are attested to in the very act of obscuring it, but the conscious concentration is supposed to be directed only to the incivility. The research paper aims to analyze and evaluate the main forms of distrust and incivility in the workplace and single out other forms of misbehavior. The research paper is based on surveys and interviews of managers, attorneys, law enforcement officers, and emergency medical professionals faced with the problem of incivility and distrust.
The topicality of the research question is explained by the fact that the now-widespread concept of incivility as collective relations, irresponsible to complete certain tasks. Closely associated with the distrust concept is the notion and role of being oppressed, and not for personal gain in a direction opposite from the group will (Kramer, 2004). At the level of official, espoused speech, staff represents an effort to bring greater voice to participants, to make the organization less demanding, less arbitrary, if not more democratic. Despite positive changes in workforce relations, incivility comes from interpersonal envy and aggression towards others.
It is supposed to mean a non-cooperative, distrust atmosphere, one dominated by hierarchical coercion. In principle, everyone works on behalf of the organization; goals and the staff ideal. Such a concept reduces personal worth and increases the struggle for domination, and authoritarianism, and creates a non-friendly environment (Heames and Harvey, 2006).
In the era of mass layoffs and the mixture of workers into units consisting of employees with whom they have not worked before, there is a flowering of the incivility of employees who are expected to work together and complete tasks as if they had been together for years and as if there were no hierarchy or superiority of “turf” within the staff. The problems of aggression and incivility are caused by the status hierarchy in the organization supposedly out of date.
In reality, members of such organizations, particularly those employees in management or executive positions in the larger organization, will sharply rebuke, if not threaten, a dissident employee for not being a team player, which means not submitting to a team or official leadership’s will. Authority and control still count, but their sting is driven secretive by official incivility (Kramer, 2004).
The manager is supposed to listen to everyone, and the staff is supposed to have the opportunity to serve as subordinates, as decisions are based on the merit of ideas–but actually, the communication is often less open, or is at least perceived to be less open, than can be said openly. “Incivility was found to reduce trust significantly at the interpersonal level. Specifically, acts of subtle incivility were found to damage cognitive- and affect-based trust with immediate supervisors more so than intense acts of incivility” (Gill 2007).
The paper examines the effects caused by incivility on trust and confidence at the workplace. Further complicating staff and leadership roles, these units are defined from the outside, and employees define their group, at the same time that new lines of power within the organization are created and employees are uncertain as to their roles, statuses, and to whom to report in the larger structure. What occurs, then, is that hierarchical authority is performed, insisted upon, nonverbally, or informally manipulated, but the issue of such exercise of incivility is denied. It means that anyone who works for a particular leader, manager, or supervisor should feel free to come to the office or work station, by drop-in or meeting, and discuss a subject of concern, seemingly about the job or the workplace (Sigrid, 2007).
It implicitly means that incivility and aggression are welcomed and will not be punished. In highly hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations, this policy is officially meant to diminish the social detachment in the organization and to make the leaders more accessible, to create an atmosphere of positive feelings to help compensate for the inevitable distance and distrust in organizations. To give decision-making ability upon another, the employees must be prepared to abandon some of it themselves and mean it (Kramer, 2004).
The research paper is based on a literature review and conversations with colleagues. The data was collected using four methods of data collection and four distinct samples of respondents and participants. The results of the research hare evaluated and research implications are presented at the end of the work. It was found that a manager has to nurture and cherish positive relations to reduce the conflict, uncertainty, the ambiguity inside the organization. incivility is a product of internal and external issues and factors, but the role of the manager is to maintain positive and trustworthy relations inside the organization.
References
Gill, M. J. (2007), The Relative Predictablility of Incivility in Interpersonal Organizational Trust. Web.
Heames, J., Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A Cross Level Assessment, Management Decision 44 (9), 1214 – 1230.
Kramer, R. M. (2004). Trust and Distrust in Organizations. Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
Sigrid, H. (2007). Under the Radar: Weeding out Workplace Aggression. Leadership Compass 5 (1). Web.