"Is There Really No Time to be Nice?”: a Micro-Level Analysis of Antecedents to Incivility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defined as a type of mistreatment of low intensity and ambiguous intent to harm, incivility is a persistent and troubling workplace phenomenon. Rooted in the self-determination theory, the impact of time pressure on workplace incivility was considered. Using an experimental design, 62 participants acted as managers in mock performance appraisals; half in each time condition (‘time pressure’ and ‘no time pressure’). Sessions were video recorded and two third-party raters, blind to the manipulation, coded the verbal and non-verbal communication behaviours of the managers and employees. Results showed that time pressure had a non-significant impact on manager incivility, and the number and type of questions the manager asked. However, significant results supported the idea that incivility breeds incivility. Supplemental analyses demonstrated that while self-reported incivility was unrelated to either third party or employee reports of manager incivility, a significant relationship existed between third-party and employee reports of manager incivility. Despite insignificant findings regarding time pressure as an antecedent of incivility, further exploration is encouraged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".