Civility and Voice in Organizations.

What do the cases below have in common?

True(ish) story #1. A new CEO in a knowledge organization was welcomed enthusiastically. Yet soon it became clear that the organizational culture was highly “vocal” - people talked back to and challenged the CEO, challenged each other. This "backtalk" was nothing like the CEO’s experience in other organizations, where employees did their jobs respectfully. Advised by a consultant, CEO’s team restructured meetings to emphasize key presentations and reorganized internal communication channels to focus on as-needed communication from management to employees. However, angry voices erupted. Instead of challenging, they became rude. Innovation suffered. People left. Productivity suffered. But the CEO was only trying to improve things, to make the place more civil!

True(ish) story #2. A new employee refused to finish the training because it was “boring,” on the first day of work did not follow the procedures, cussed out a coworker, and when corrected by the manager, stated, “I do not feel heard or appreciated here as a person” and slammed the door with an ageist comment (unfortunately, both stories had to be toned down). 

Most of us probably do not think that bringing our authentic self to work means it’s OK to be rude (but some do ). Yet, situations similar to the above happen quite often. In a recently published article, I discuss how the conflict in teams, organizations, and societies may result from the false perception that civility (norms for respectful treatment) comes at the expense of voice (employee communication of ideas), and that voice comes at the expense of civility. Hence, in the first example, the CEO tried to “improve” civility by limiting voice – but such attempts tend to backfire, as people are likely to use increasingly dramatic ways of communication in order to be heard. In interpersonal and team communication, the lack of understanding that exercising voice does not mean abandoning civility leads to relational and productivity loss.

           The model of constructive communication climate is based on civility and voice as its essential dimensions which from 4 quadrants of organizational communication climate.

Constructive: high civility, high voice climate, characterized by transparency and effective multidirectional communication, such as described in this example from the Container Store. Combining the benefits of civility and voice tends to result in high engagement and creative productivity.

Contentious: low civility, high voice climate. People in the organization speak freely, but communication may lack sensitivity to others. Sadly, in the first example, the CEO attempted to “fix” what she perceived as a contentious environment by removing employee voice, rather than encouraging civility. Removing or limiting voice tends to happen when leaders see the next type of climate, compliant, as most desirable.

Compliant: high civility, low voice climate. In the early and mid-20th century, this was an organizational ideal – peaceful and orderly, with people doing as they are told. Yet, in the knowledge and creativity economy, organizations cannot afford the loss of diverse employee input. Sometimes, blind compliance can even be deadly.

Corrosive: low civility, low voice climate. Disempowered employees turn on each other, while the organization loses productivity, though it may linger in corrosion if there are resources to sustain its existence.           

Although the original conceptualization was inspired by cultural dynamics within Higher Education, foundational psychological processes that underlie our need for both voice and civility apply across all types of “people groups,” from small teams or organizational units to large corporations and societies. Validating the importance of every voice while maintaining that civility in the expression of voice is necessary for supporting the dignity of all can help in creating healthy and productive environments. 

Reference:

Praslova, L.N. (2019). Civility and voice: From “civility wars” to constructive engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 12, 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.68

Many thanks to Elizabeth Borcia and Andrew Stenhouse for their feedback on the draft of this article.