UNDERSTANDING GROUP DYNAMICS, OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE AND INCIVILITY IN WORK ORGANISATIONS.

TOMOLOJU. P. O, CHOVWEN, C. O

Abstract


This study investigated group dynamic, openness to experience and workplace incivility in the workplace. Two hundred and sixty eight telecommunication employees, (97 male and 171 female), with an age range of 18 to 55 years participated in the study. Data were collected using three validated scales. Results indicated that group dynamics has no significant relationship with workplace incivility (r (268) = .02; P>.05); Openness to experience has significant inverse relationship with workplace incivility (r (268) = -.16**; P<.01). Group dynamics and openness to experience had no joint influence on workplace incivility (F (2, 264) = 1.46; >.05) while openness to experience had significant main influence on workplace incivility (F (1, 264) =8.54; <.05), group dynamics does not had significant main influence on workplace incivility (F (1, 264) = .00; >.05). Also there was no significant difference between male and female employees on workplace incivility (t (266) = 0.39, P>.05). It was concluded that employees with higher level of openness to experience employees will be more cohesive, and avoid the manifestation of workplace incivility and this will results in higher productivity and achievement of organizational set goals and objectives. Thus, it is imperative for organisations to device checklist to promote effective group dynamics and openness to experience in order to inculcate acceptable work etiquette among employees to prevent incidence of workplace incivility and its consequences.


Keywords


group dynamics, openness to experience and workplace incivility

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adams, J.D. (1998). A healthy cut in costs. Personnel Administration, 33, 42-47.

Anderson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiral effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of

Management Review, 24, 452-471

Baba, V. V., Jamal, M., & Tourigny, L. (1999), Work and mental health: A decade in Canadian research. Canadian Psychology, 39, 94-104

Berlin, J. (1996). Prediction experience and consequence of violence. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatoo (Eds). Violence on job: identifying risks and developing solutions. (pp. 22-49). Washington DC: American Psychological Association

Coon, D. (2004). Introduction to Psychology: Gateway to Mind and Behaviour. Tenth edition, Pearson International Edition

Cortina, M. L., Maglay, V. J., WilliamsJ. L., & Langout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Emotional Publishing Foundation, 1076, 89981011155

Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 658-668

Donelson, R. F. (2006). Group dynamics. Fourth Edition.

Donahue, E. M., John, O. P., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research

Farr, D. K., & Cortina, L. M. (2012). Selective injustice: gender, race and the discriminatory workplace

Gladding, S.T., & Binkley, M. A. (2008). Advancing groups: Practical ways leaders can work through some problematic situations (ACAPCD-11). Alexandria, VA: American Counselling Association

Gorse, C.A., & Sanderson, A. M. (2007). Exploring group-work dynamics. Lead Metropolitan University. Queen Square Court, Northern Terrace Leads Ls26Ag

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World.

Ismail, I. R. (2011). Effect of workplace incivility on co-worker helping: the mediating role of hurt feelings. Universiti Tun Abdul Razak E-Journal Vol. 7, No. 2,

Ismail, I. R. B., & D. Zakaun, Z.Z. M. (2012). Workplace incivility in Malaysia: A descriptive exploratory study. 3rd International Conference on Business and Economic Research. (3rd ICBER 2012), ISBN: 978-967-5705-05-2

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.). Oxford, England: Harpers

Lim, S., & Cortina, L, M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 90, 483-496

Lim, S., & Howard, R. (1998) .Antecedents of sexual and non-sexual aggression in young Singaporean men. Personality and individual differences, 25, 1168-1182

Nazzaro, A., & Strazabosco, J. (2009). Group dynamics and team building. Second Edition. World Federation of Hemophilia

Omoluabi, P. F. (1997). Psychosocial dimensions of occupational stress. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Lagos, Nigeria

Pearson, C.M., Anderson, L.M., & Porath, C.L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123-137

Pearson, C.M., Anderson, L.M., & Wegner, J.W. ( 2001). When workers flouts convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relation, 5, 1387-1419

Porath, C.L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behaviour. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 64-71

Satir (1972). Understanding group dynamics and systems

Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P.C., & Cammann, C (Eds) (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: John Wiley.

Skinner, B. F (1966). The behaviour of organisms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Smither, R.D. (1998). The psychology of work and human performance (3rd ed). New York : Longman

Store, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds). Trends in Organizational Behaviours.1, 99-109, New York: Wiley

Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2005). An introduction to group work practice. Longman


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.