Incivility toward managers: gender differences in well-being outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

Drawing on selective incivility theory (Cortina, 2008) and the literature on gender and leadership (e.g. Vial et al., 2016), the purpose of this paper is to investigate well-being outcomes of often neglected targets of incivility – those who manage or lead the work of others. The authors examined links between managers’ experiences of incivility from those to whom they report and five well-being outcomes, controlling for co-worker and subordinate incivility.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors used a cross-sectional correlational design to test the hypotheses, with a sample of 50 employees (28 females, 22 males) who supervise, manage or lead the work of others.

Findings

Male and female managers reported similar levels of incivility from subordinates and higher-ups; males reported greater incivility from co-workers. Significant interactions were also found: the relationship between incivility from those higher up and positive affect (high and low intensity) and perceived impact were significantly stronger for female (vs male) managers.

Research limitations/implications

Women did not experience greater workplace incivility than men, albeit the two-week timeframe of measurement may be too short to capture differences. The authors did, however, find evidence that well-being implications of experienced incivility from those higher up are generally stronger for female leaders.

Originality/value

The study investigates multi-source incivility directed at those in leadership/managerial positions and contributes to a growing literature seeking to understand the experiences of women in these roles. Although women in management roles may experience similar levels of incivility as men, they may interpret the behavior in a more negative light, in line with the persistence of sexism in the workplace.

Citation

Holmvall, C.M. and Sobhani, S.M. (2020), "Incivility toward managers: gender differences in well-being outcomes", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2018-0120