Publisher
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Place of Publication
Chattanooga (Tenn.)
Abstract
(1) Proposed and in-progress research The popular practice of using “leader” and “manager” terms synonymously in organizational practice, research, and public discourse has been suggested to pose issues given the implicit assignment of benevolence, merit, and morality to “leader” titles more so than “manager” titles (Learmonth & Morrell, 2021; McLaren, 2013). We contextualize this concern in the phenomenological space of workplace incivility, which consists of “rude, condescending, and ostracizing acts that violate workplace norms of respect, but otherwise appear mundane” (Cortina eta l., 2017, pg. 299). The purpose of our study is to understand what (if any) differences exist in the nature of employee explanations for supervisor incivility when prompts included “leader incivility” terms versus “manager incivility” terms. We used Prolific to collect data from 250 adults over the age of 18 who work in the US, resulting in a sample of 149 respondents who experienced “supervisor incivility” recently. Respondents recalled and described a specific event of “supervisor incivility” then were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, one asking for explanations of their “leader’s” behavior and another asking for explanations of their “manager’s” behavior. These free-response explanations were coded for the presence of reasons, causal histories of reasons, enabling factors, and agreement markers based on Malle’s (2004, 2011) folk theory of the mind framework. A blinded (condition not indicated) dataset was used for coding, and each explanation was coded individually by two of the three research teammates before reconciling codes as a group. Our initial exploratory analysis aimed to detect differences in the occurrence of these explanatory tools based on respondent assignment to “leader” and “manager” conditions. Binomial logistic regression indicated no difference between the conditions with regards to the explanatory tools used to explain supervisor incivility. This finding suggests that titling alone (“leader” vs. “manager”) may not alter how employees interpret incivility. For research, this challenges the assumption that employees view the term “leader” more favorably and emphasizes the need to closely examine the environmental factors that contribute to employees’ incivility explanations. For practice, the results suggest that organizations should be mindful in how they use job titles. Using “leader” and “manager” interchangeably may not protect against negative perceptions of supervisor mistreatment, but having inconsistent titles could influence employee expectations. We are enthused to present these findings and our future analytical directions, which include examining factors such as employee identification, frequency and intensity of interactions, and coding themes and content within explanations.
Subject
Industrial and organizational psychology
Document Type
posters
Language
English
Rights
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Included in
Do Perceptions and Explanations of Supervisor Incivility Vary Based on Leader and Manager Prompt Terminology?
(1) Proposed and in-progress research The popular practice of using “leader” and “manager” terms synonymously in organizational practice, research, and public discourse has been suggested to pose issues given the implicit assignment of benevolence, merit, and morality to “leader” titles more so than “manager” titles (Learmonth & Morrell, 2021; McLaren, 2013). We contextualize this concern in the phenomenological space of workplace incivility, which consists of “rude, condescending, and ostracizing acts that violate workplace norms of respect, but otherwise appear mundane” (Cortina eta l., 2017, pg. 299). The purpose of our study is to understand what (if any) differences exist in the nature of employee explanations for supervisor incivility when prompts included “leader incivility” terms versus “manager incivility” terms. We used Prolific to collect data from 250 adults over the age of 18 who work in the US, resulting in a sample of 149 respondents who experienced “supervisor incivility” recently. Respondents recalled and described a specific event of “supervisor incivility” then were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, one asking for explanations of their “leader’s” behavior and another asking for explanations of their “manager’s” behavior. These free-response explanations were coded for the presence of reasons, causal histories of reasons, enabling factors, and agreement markers based on Malle’s (2004, 2011) folk theory of the mind framework. A blinded (condition not indicated) dataset was used for coding, and each explanation was coded individually by two of the three research teammates before reconciling codes as a group. Our initial exploratory analysis aimed to detect differences in the occurrence of these explanatory tools based on respondent assignment to “leader” and “manager” conditions. Binomial logistic regression indicated no difference between the conditions with regards to the explanatory tools used to explain supervisor incivility. This finding suggests that titling alone (“leader” vs. “manager”) may not alter how employees interpret incivility. For research, this challenges the assumption that employees view the term “leader” more favorably and emphasizes the need to closely examine the environmental factors that contribute to employees’ incivility explanations. For practice, the results suggest that organizations should be mindful in how they use job titles. Using “leader” and “manager” interchangeably may not protect against negative perceptions of supervisor mistreatment, but having inconsistent titles could influence employee expectations. We are enthused to present these findings and our future analytical directions, which include examining factors such as employee identification, frequency and intensity of interactions, and coding themes and content within explanations.
Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Dept. of Psychology