Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

Despite a growing body of evidence on academic incivility, limited information exists on workplace incivility perceived by nursing students in nursing schools. This study, conducted amid the COVID-19 pandemic, explores nursing students’ perceptions of workplace incivility in Jordanian nursing schools and investigates demographic-based differences.

Methods

This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design, using an online survey for data collection. A convenience sample of 104 nursing students from diverse backgrounds and various Jordanian universities participated, allowing for a comprehensive examination of workplace incivility perceptions at a specific point in time. The online survey ensured efficient data collection, enhancing accessibility and ease of participation. This approach aimed to capture a snapshot of nursing students’ perspectives on workplace incivility within a given time frame and across multiple educational institutions, efficiently gathering data from a geographically dispersed and demographically varied sample.

Results

Students perceived workplace incivility in nursing schools as “mild,” with moderate confidence in schools’ ability to address it. Workplace civility was rated between 60.00% and 70.00% on a 0–100 scale. The overall mean for uncivil behaviors was “sometimes,” with criticism of expertise as the most common. Incivility in the past year was seen as “rare,” with misusing authority being the most frequent. Male and low-GPA students reported higher perceptions of incivility. Stress was the most perceived contributing factor, and a lack of administrative support was the main barrier. Establishing codes of conduct was considered the key strategy for fostering workplace civility.

Conclusion

Workplace civility is prevalent in Jordanian nursing schools, even amid the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the occasional occurrence of incivility behaviors should be approached with caution. To enhance perceptions of workplace civility, nursing schools should prioritize effective teaching, a friendly environment, and respectful relationships. Encouraging faculty members to reassess their performance, starting with identifying academic workplace incivility, is crucial.

Keywords

nursing students workplace incivility nursing schools

Introduction

Academic incivility is a multidimensional growing problem; it is one of nowadays debates concerning nursing education (Al-Jubouri et al., 2021; Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; Lopez, 2024; Mohammadipour et al., 2018) which may be exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incivility concerns inappropriate communication and a lack of respect and regard for others (Anderson et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021). Incivility or uncivil behavior is prevalent in academics and increased during COVID-19 (Anderson et al., 2022). It distorts productive relationships, promotes discord, and causes workplace inharmony. Academic workplace incivility is about disruptive behaviors that lead to psychological or physiological distress (Mohammadipour et al., 2018; Vuolo, 2017).

Workplace incivility is a hot and escalating behavior in nursing education (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). It imposes many serious challenges in the classrooms, online education, and clinical settings (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). In recent studies, workplace incivility research in the academic environment is proliferative (Clark et al., 2021; Karaçay & Oflaz, 2021; McGee, 2021; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021). Incivility among nursing faculty disrupts the academic work environment, resulting in negative outcomes such as physical and mental problems as well as leaving academia (Bence et al., 2022; Clark, 2013; Clark et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021). Incivility among nursing faculty leads to incivility in the workplace and among their students, who most likely will be uncivil future nurses; faculty members are the role models for their students (Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021).

Problem, Purpose, and Significance

There is a growing body of evidence highlighting workplace incivility, including academic settings (Lopez, 2024; Small et al., 2024), particularly in the context of nursing education, with a potential increase during the COVID-19 pandemic (Clark et al., 2021; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021). Despite this, the existing research lacks a comprehensive understanding of workplace incivility in nursing schools, as reported by both faculty members and students (Al-Jubouri et al., 2021; Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; Karaçay & Oflaz, 2021; Lopez, 2024; McGee, 2021; Small et al., 2024).

Nursing education holds significant importance in molding compassionate nurses; however, the existence of incivility hinders student advancement and diminishes empathy (Clark et al., 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Uncontrolled academic incivility could potentially lead to the development of uncivil nurses, posing threats to patient safety and overall effectiveness (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018).

While recent studies have explored nursing workplace incivility, particularly in academia, academic workplace incivility from the perspective of nursing students remains understudied (Al-Jubouri et al., 2021; Bence et al., 2022; Chihak, 2018; Clark et al., 2021; Karaçay & Oflaz, 2021; McGee, 2021; Muliira et al., 2017; Sherrod & Lewallen, 2021; Sills, 2016). Existing research has primarily focused on faculty members’ perceptions, indicating an increasing prevalence of student incivility (Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Studies like Rafiee Vardanjani et al. (2016) highlighted reciprocal complaints of incivility between faculty members and students, creating a cycle of workplace incivility in nursing schools.

This study addresses a significant gap by assessing workplace incivility in nursing schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, as perceived by nursing students. The research aims to uncover workplace incivility behaviors, their frequency, and the student's perceptions of the problem. It also investigates students’ views on their nursing schools’ confidence levels in addressing incivility, the perceived level of workplace civility, and potential differences based on student characteristics. Furthermore, the study explores factors and barriers perceived by students that hinder nursing schools from effectively dealing with workplace incivility. Lastly, it seeks to identify effective strategies, as perceived by students, for promoting workplace civility in nursing schools.

The findings from this study are anticipated to contribute valuable insights for the development of preventive strategies against academic incivility, emphasizing the crucial need to foster civil academic environments (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021). For example, nursing schools must institute rigorous processes to screen future students and academics for professional traits (Small et al., 2024), including the ability to work well in teams and interact civilly.

Literature Review

Academic incivility occurs in many forms: student–student, faculty member–student, or faculty member–faculty member relations (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; McGee, 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). In all cases, incivility is mostly a reciprocal process in which students and faculty members contribute. Yet, students have little power and, in turn, are more likely to experience incivility (Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Stress caused by educational programs and faculty members is the main stress-inducing factor among students. As the less powerful group, students are helpless in dealing with stress, resulting in conflict between the students and the faculty members (Mohammadipour et al., 2018).

Academic Workplace Incivility

Workplace incivility behaviors include being unapproachable or rude, harassing, taunting, rejecting opinions, challenging the credibility of others, and keeping people waiting (Anderson et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Workplace incivility behaviors among nursing faculty members include sensing rejection, struggling to remain in the faculty, setting novice faculty members to fail, and sensing a possessiveness of territory from senior faculty members (Clark et al., 2021; Peters, 2014). Other nursing workplace incivility behaviors include passive-aggressive behaviors, sabotage, false accusations, threats and intimidation, isolation, and mobbing (Clark et al., 2021; LaSala et al., 2016).

Outcomes of Academic Workplace Incivilities

Academic workplace incivility is students’ or faculty members’ rude and disruptive behaviors that result in many negative outcomes, such as leaving the faculty or the poor performance of the students (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021). Disruptive behaviors have three major categories: (1) disruptive behaviors affecting communication climate, (2) disruptive behaviors affecting ethical climate, and (3) disruptive behaviors affecting learning climate (Bence et al., 2022; Masoumpoor et al., 2017).

Academic workplace incivility exacerbates faculty members’ and students’ psychological and physiological symptoms (Bence et al., 2022; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). For faculty members and students, it increases stress levels, decreases self-esteem, damages relationships, decreases the quality of life, and decreases physical and psychological well-being (Bence et al., 2022; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Incivility also results in nursing faculty members’ and students’ attrition (Mohammadipour et al., 2018). For faculty members, it threatens workplace safety and negatively influences professionals’ relationships, recruitment, retention, job satisfaction (Bence et al., 2022; Clark et al., 2021; Meires, 2018), and leadership effectiveness (LaSala et al., 2016). For students, particularly, the faculty members’ incivility has negative consequences, such as feeling helpless and traumatized, suffering from physical and psychological harm, and developing emotional stress (Bence et al., 2022; Mohammadipour et al., 2018). Faculty members’ incivility against their students results in feeling helpless, weak, and undervalued, experiencing incivility, feeling anxious, and poor performance (Bence et al., 2022; Mohammadipour et al., 2018; Rad et al., 2016).

As a result, managing incivility should be a priority in the academic nursing workplace. Developed interventions should promote a culture of civility in the nursing workplace and education, investigate incivility immediately when it happens, and improve teaching-learning processes (Mohammadipour et al., 2018). This research fills a crucial void by examining instances of workplace incivility in nursing schools amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, as observed by nursing students.

The study aims to reveal the prevalence of workplace incivility behaviors, the frequency at which they occur, and the perceptions of students regarding this issue. Additionally, it explores students’ perspectives on the confidence levels of their nursing schools in handling incivility, the perceived degree of workplace civility, and potential variations based on individual student characteristics.

Methodology

Design

In Jordan, during COVID-19, a cross-sectional design, utilizing an online survey, was used to collect data in 2021 from nursing students studying in governmental and private universities.

Sample and Settings

Data for the current study were collected using a convenience sample of 104 nursing students from Jordanian universities.

Sample

The current researchers usually determine their studies’ sample sizes by using the power analysis method or the common sampling rules. It is recommended to have 20–30 participants for each variable (Polit & Beck, 2019). However, in the case of a study with only one main variable, there is no specific minimum sample size required for the t-tests to be valid if it is large enough to calculate the test statistic accurately. Nevertheless, if the sample size is too small, the power of the test may be insufficient to detect significant differences in the data.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The only sample inclusion criteria were using the e-platform and being a university nursing student.

Ethics

The institutional review board approved the study of the first author's university, IRB No. 1/8/2020/2021, dated April 12, 2021. After receiving study approval, data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, and all responses were reported as aggregated data. Nursing students responded to the survey through a secure web-based system. Anonymous information was gathered using codes; no link between the data collected and the respondents. Confidentiality was ensured because their overall results were shared with the nursing school administrators.

Data Collection

The self-report online survey method was used to collect data for the current study. Following institutional approval and obtaining consent from nursing students, a preliminary study was undertaken. Implied consent was utilized, with nursing students indicating their willingness to “respond to the survey” in response to invitations. A link to a voluntary workplace incivility survey was disseminated to nursing students enrolled in online courses across government and private universities in Jordan via email, Facebook, and WhatsApp. The survey remained accessible for 10 days (from March 19, 2021, to March 29, 2021), with a reminder sent on the fifth day emphasizing a single submission. The Google form was structured accordingly.

Tools

Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey

To collect data for the current study, the Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey (WICS) was used (Clark et al., 2021). It is derived from the Faculty-to-Faculty Incivility Survey (F-FI Survey) (Clark, 2013; Clark et al., 2013). Workplace Incivility/Civility Survey measures faculty members’ and students’ perceptions and frequency of workplace incivility and effective ways to deal with such a problem.

The original WICS is a mixed-method survey that comprises four parts: (1) includes demographic items. The sample's characteristics were gender, GPA, level of education, types of the university the students enrolled in, age, and income. The second section includes a list of 24 behaviors that may be considered uncivil (1 = always, 2 = usually, 3 = sometimes, and 4 = never) to indicate how respondents perceive the behaviors to be uncivil; (2) consists of questions that measure the frequency of these behaviors in the last 12 months (1 = often, 2 = sometimes, 3 = rarely, and 4 = never). However, the pilot suggested the opposite rating because we were culturally accustomed to the opposition. Therefore, the incivility behaviors were scored as (4 = always, 3 = usually, 2 = sometimes, and 1 = never), and their frequencies in the last 12 months were scored (4 = often, 3 = sometimes, 2 = rarely, and 1 = never); (3) includes checklist items about the extent of incivility in the workplace (1 = no problem at all, 2 = mild problem, 3 = moderate problem, 4 = serious problem, 5 = I don’t know/can’t answer) and the level of confidence in addressing it (4 = high level of confidence, 3 = moderate level of confidence, 2 = minimal level of confidence, 1 = no confidence at all), reasons for respondent avoidance of addressing workplace incivility, the factors perceived to contribute to workplace incivility, and level of workplace civility on a scale of 0–100, and strategies to improve workplace civility; and (4) includes two open-ended questions that assess the respondent's experience of workplace incivility and identify the most effective ways to combat workplace incivility. This study was conducted as mixed-method research; however, the student's responses did not help the researchers identify emerging themes. Therefore, the quantitative part was only considered.

For the original WICS, factor analysis was performed in the F-FI Survey (Clark et al., 2021). The researchers labeled factor 1 as “disruptive behaviors” and factor 2 as “threatening behaviors” based on the continuum of incivility. The factor loadings indicated one cross-loaded item, which was “abusing position or authority.” Both factors demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.95 for factor 1 and 0.98 for factor 2 (Clark et al., 2021). In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha of WICS was found to be 0.98.

Data Analyses

The Social Science Statistics Package version 25 (IBM, 2017) analyzed the data at a significance level of ≤0.05. A few quantitative data were missing. Therefore, no intervention took place.

Nursing students’ characteristics and ranked mean scores of the perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequencies were reported using means and standard deviations, or frequencies and percentages, per the levels of the measurement. Using total scores of incivility, differences in the perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequency in the last 12 months were assessed using t-tests (Polit & Beck, 2019).

Results

Nursing Students’ Characteristics

There was a total of 104 nursing students participated in this study. The majority of nursing students were females (63.50%), had a GPA of at least 2.50 out of 4 (62.50%), enrolled in a nursing program in a governmental university (98.10%), aged less than 25 years (89.50%), and from poor or average income families (63.50%).

Trends of Perceived Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools

The students were asked about their perceptions of the extent of incivility in the workplace in nursing schools; around 40.00% of them said it was a “mild” issue. About 60.00% of the students perceived “moderate” confidence in nursing schools’ abilities to resolve workplace incivility. The students were asked to rate their perceived level of civility in the workplace in nursing schools on a 0–100 scale; most nursing students (44.00%) claimed it ranged from 60.00% to 70.00% (average of 65.00%).

The overall mean of perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools was 2.14 (SD = 0.98), which means that the students perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools as “sometimes” uncivil. The overall mean frequency of perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools in the last 12 months was 2.21 (SD = 0.99), which means that the students perceived the frequency of such incivility behaviors as “rare.”

Individual item analysis was used to determine the mean ratings of nursing students on what they perceive as workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, with a range of 1.90–2.28, indicating that certain workplace behaviors in nursing schools are perceived as “sometimes” uncivil. Table 1 shows the range of mean scores for the top 10 workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, ranging from 2.16 to 2.28 for the listed behaviors. Among workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, criticizing one's expertise or credibility was ranked first (M = 2.28, SD = 0.89), followed by misusing one's position or authority (M = 2.26, SD = 0.97) and failing to perform their share of the workload (M = 2.24 SD = 0.97).

Table 1.

The Rank of Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools as Perceived by Nursing Students (N = 104).

Item	Statement	M	Rank
	The ten most important workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools
20	Challenge your or a coworker's knowledge or credibility	2.28 (0.87)	1
2	Abuse position or authority (e.g., make unreasonable or unfair demands, assign inequitable workload)	2.26 (0.97)	2
4	Consistently fail to perform their share of the workload	2.24 (0.96)	3
1	Set someone (you or a coworker) up to fail alone or in concert with others	2.23 (0.91)	4
7	Invoke personal religious or political values or beliefs to impose a specific outcome.	2.23 (1.06)	5
13	Refuse to listen or openly communicate on work-related issues	2.20 (0.90)	6
6	Engage in secretive meetings behind closed doors	2.18 (1.06)	7
17	Use personal technology (cell phones, handheld devices, etc.) in a way that disrupts and/or interrupts interactions	2.17 (0.98)	8
3	Make rude remarks, put-downs, or name-calling (when done to you or a coworker)	2.16 (0.96)	9
15	Take credit for the work/contributions of others (yours or a coworker)	2.16 (0.96)	10
	The ten least important workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools		The ten least experienced uncivil behaviors within the past 12 months (N = 63)
8	Intentionally exclude or leave you or a coworker out of activities	2.13 (0.99)	1
18	Be inattentive or cause distractions during meetings	2.13 (1.00)	2
23	Consistently demonstrate an “entitled” or “narcissistic attitude” toward you or a coworker	2.11 (0.95)	3
21	Circulate private e-mails without knowledge or permission (to discredit you or a coworker)	2.10 (1.05)	4
22	Circumvent the normal grievance process (e.g., going above someone's head or failing to follow procedures to resolve conflict)	2.08 (0.93)	5
16	Use gossip or rumors to turn others against you or a coworker	2.06 (0.92)	6
12	Make racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, or religious slurs about anyone	2.03 (0.99)	7
9	Make personal attacks or threatening comments in person or by telephone toward you or a coworker	2.01 (0.98)	8
10	Make personal attacks or threatening comments using email, digital, or social media toward you or a coworker	2.00 (1.07)	9
11	Make physical threats (toward you or a coworker)	1.94 (1.03)	10

Regarding the 10 least workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, the range of the mean ratings of workplace incivility behaviors was confined to limited possibilities (1.94–2.13). Physically threatening another person was deemed the least workplace uncivil behavior in nursing schools (M = 1.94, SD = 1.03), followed by sending personal attacks or threats through email, the internet, or social media was deemed the ninth most uncivil conduct (M = 2.00, SD = 1.07), and making personal attacks or threatening comments in person or by telephone toward another person (M = 2.01, SD = 0.98) (Table 1).

Perceived Frequency of Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools in the Last 12 Months

Students were asked about the perceived frequency of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools in the last 12 months. The highest and lowest mean scores for the 10 perceived frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools ranged from 2.23 to 2.38 and 1.96 to 2.18, respectively (Table 2). Among frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, misusing one's position or authority (e.g., by making excessive or unfair demands, and assigning inequitable workload) was placed at the top (M = 2.38, SD = 0.90), followed by challenging the knowledge and credibility of others (M = 2.36, SD = 0.91), and setting up others to fail alone or in concert with others (M = 2.34, SD = 0.89). On the other hand, making physical threats toward others (M = 1.96, SD = 1.02), making personal attacks or threatening comments using emails, digital, or social media (M = 2.06, SD = 1.08), or in person or by telephone (M = 2.06, SD = 1.03).

Table 2.

The Rank of Frequency of Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools Within the Past 12 Months as Perceived by Nursing Students (N = 104).

Item	Statement	M (SD)	Rank
The ten most frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools within the past 12 months
2	Abuse position or authority (e.g., make unreasonable or unfair demands, assign inequitable workload)	2.38 (0.90)	1
20	Challenge your or a coworker's knowledge or credibility	2.36 (0.91)	2
1	Set someone (you or a coworker) up to fail alone or in concert with others	2.34 (0.89)	3
23	Consistently demonstrate an “entitled” or “narcissistic attitude” toward you or a coworker	2.32 (1.00)	4
13	Refuse to listen or openly communicate on work-related issues	2.31 (0.93)	5
14	Resist or create friction to prevent changes from occurring in the workplace	2.29 (0.96)	6
17	Use personal technology (cell phones, handheld devices, etc.) in a way that disrupts and/or interrupts interactions	2.28 (1.03)	7
15	Take credit for the work/contributions of others (yours or a coworker)	2.25 (1.03)	8
8	Intentionally exclude or leave you or a coworker out of activities	2.24 (1.05)	9
4	Consistently fail to perform their share of the workload	2.23 (0.93)	10
The ten least frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools within the past 12 months
5	Consistently interrupt you or a coworker	2.18 (0.91)	1
24	Make rude nonverbal behaviors or gestures (toward you or a coworker)	2.18 (0.99)	2
22	Circumvent the normal grievance process (e.g., going above someone's head or failing to follow procedures to resolve conflict)	2.15 (0.96)	3
16	Use gossip or rumors to turn others against you or a coworker	2.14 (0.98)	4
3	Make rude remarks, put-downs, or name-calling (when done to you or a coworker)	2.13 (0.95)	5
12	Make racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, or religious slurs about anyone	2.09 (1.01)	6
21	Circulate private emails without knowledge or permission (to discredit you or a coworker)	2.08 (0.99)	7
9	Make personal attacks or threatening comments in person or by telephone toward you or a coworker	2.06 (1.03)	8
10	Make personal attacks or threatening comments using email, digital, or social media toward you or a coworker	2.06 (1.08)	9
11	Make physical threats (toward you or a coworker)	1.96 (1.02)	10

Differences in the Perceived Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools and Their Frequencies in the Last 12 Months

The total mean scores of perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequencies in the last 12 months were calculated and compared based on the sample's gender, GPA, and income characteristics. There were significant differences in perceived workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequencies in the past 12 months based on students’ gender and GPA (Table 3). Male students had higher perceptions of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools (p = .01) and their frequency in the past 12 months (p = .01) than female students (Table 4). Furthermore, students with low GPAs had higher perceptions of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools (p = .01) and their frequency in the past 12 months (p = .01) than their counterparts (Table 4). There were no significant differences in the studied concepts based on income.

Table 3.

Nursing Students’ Characteristics (N = 104).

Variables	N	%
Gender
Male	38	36.50
Female	66	63.50
GPA
Below 2	14	13.50
2.00–2.50	24	23.10
2.60–3.50	37	35.50
Above 3.5	29	27.90
Education level
Associates diploma	1	1.60
Baccalaureates	42	66.70
Master level	5	7.90
Doctorate	15	23.80
Type of university
Governmental	102	98.10
Private	2	1.90
Age
Less than 25 years	93	89.50
25–34 years	7	6.70
35–44 years	2	1.90
45–54 years	2	1.90
Income
Below 600 JD	66	63.50
Above 600 JD	38	36.50

Table 4.

Independent t-test for assessing significant differences in workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequencies in the last 12 months as perceived by nursing students (N = 104).

	The total mean scores of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools		Frequency of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools in the last 12 months
Demographic variable	Mean (SD)	p-value	Mean (SD)	p-value
Gender
Male (N = 38)	2.50 (0.80)	.01	2.48 (0.69)	.01
Female (N = 66)	1.92 (0.74)	.01	2.04 (0.83)	.01
GPA
Below 2.5 (N = 39)	2.43 (0.77)	.01	2.52 (0.83)	.01
Above 2.5 (N = 65)	1.96 (0.79)	.01	2.01 (0.73)	.01
Income
Below 600 JD (N = 66)	2.05 (0.79)	.19	2.18 (0.86)	.74
Above 600 JD (N = 38)	2.27 (0.84)	.19	2.24 (0.72)	.74

Students’ Perceived Factors Contributing to Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools

The students were asked about the most significant factors leading to workplace incivility in nursing schools. The majority of respondents reported: “stress” (N = 69, 65.00%), “demanding workload” (N = 52, 49.00%), and “lack of knowledge and skills in managing conflict” (N = 49, 46.00%) as the major factors.

Students’ Perceived Barriers to Nursing Schools to Address or Deal with Workplace Incivility

The students were asked about their perceived barriers to nursing schools addressing or dealing with workplace incivility. The majority claimed a lack of administrative support (N = 43, 41.00%) and professional retaliation (N = 42, 40.00%) were the frequent barriers to dealing with workplace incivility. Other barriers included nursing students’ perceived lack of a clear policy to handle workplace incivility and a lack of knowledge and skills (N = 36, 34.00%), a reluctance to question authority or position (N = 36, 34.00%), and a preference to avoid confrontation or conflict (N = 35, 32.00%).

Students’ Perceived Strategies to Foster Workplace Civility in Nursing Schools

The students were asked about their perceived strategies to promote workplace civility in nursing schools. Establishing codes of conduct that define what acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are (N = 49, 45.80%), raising awareness, investing in incivility/ civility education (N = 44, 41.10%), and providing training for effective communication and conflict negotiation (N = 43, 40.20%) were the commonly reported strategies.

Discussion

Trends of Perceived Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools

This study's results provide valuable information on workplace incivility in nursing schools. The majority of the students perceived the extent of workplace incivility in nursing schools as a “mild” issue, which is better than Clark et al. (2013) and (2021), who reported workplace incivility as a “moderate” or “serious” issue.

The perceived confidence level in nursing schools’ abilities to resolve workplace incivility was “moderate.” This result makes sense because managing workplace incivility in nursing schools requires vigilance, skillful, and resonant leadership (Clark et al., 2021). Our result is better than what was reported by Clark et al. (2013) and Clark (2013); the confidence level in nursing schools’ abilities to resolve workplace incivility was 30.70%, indicating a “low” confidence level. The current “moderate” perceived confidence levels in nursing schools’ abilities to resolve workplace incivility indicate an increased administrators’ overall confidence in addressing workplace incivility in nursing schools, which could be related to increased awareness about the negative effects of incivility and inducing civility training programs in the nursing workplace and education, similar to Clark et al. (2021).

On a 0–100 scale, the nursing students were asked to rate their perceived level of workplace civility in nursing schools; it ranged from 60.00% to 70.00% (on average of 65.00%), which is close to the 62.00% civility rate reported in Clark et al. (2021). Our finding is higher than what the author reported in previous studies using the WICS, around 48% in Clark et al. (2013) and Clark (2013).

The overall mean of the perceived workplace behaviors incivility in nursing schools indicated that they were “sometimes” uncivil, consistent with Sills (2016). The overall mean perceived frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools in the last 12 months indicated that they were “rarely” uncivil, similar to Sauer et al. (2017). This comforting trend pinpoints that workplace civility in nursing schools is the norm in academic settings in Jordan.

Perceived Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools

The mean rating of students on what they perceived as workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools was criticizing one's expertise or credibility; this result is unique. This uncivil behavior is common among our administrators when something goes wrong. This behavior was followed by misusing one's position or authority (Contrary to Clark et al., 2021; it was the third least ranked behavior) and failing to perform their share of the workload (Similar to the three top behaviors in Clark et al., 2021). This rank of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools suggests that these behaviors persist over time; Clark et al. (2021) reported that such ranked incivility behaviors become a part of the academic culture and norm. Clark et al. (2021) stressed overcoming all incivility behaviors by creating agreed-upon team norms. These norms would decrease or eliminate workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools by establishing respectful ways of interaction with colleagues, administrators, and students.

Regarding the 10 least workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools, physically threatening another person was deemed the least uncivil behavior (Similar to Clark et al., 2021). One of the unique findings of the current study is that faculty members mostly do not send personal attacks or threats through email, the internet, or social media. They do not make personal attacks or threatening comments in person or by telephone toward another person. The absence of such incivility behaviors is relieving; we do not generally harass our students.

Perceived Frequency of Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools in the Last 12 Months

Nursing students were asked about the frequency of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools in the last 12 months. Faculty members’ misusing their position or authority was placed at the top (Contrary to Clark et al., 2021; it was the third least frequent behavior). This uncivil behavior is followed by faculty members’ challenging the knowledge and credibility of others; sadly, this is a frequent uncivil behavior of our administrators and faculty members when they need to blame others or want to deem others accountable for incivility behaviors. The third least uncivil behavior was faculty members’ setting up others to fail alone or in concert with others; this is also a frequent uncivil behavior in our clinical settings; however, sadly, such behavior spreads over in our academic settings.

The lowest perceived less frequent workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools were making physical threats toward others, personal attacks, or threatening comments using emails, digital or social media, or in person or by telephone. We tend to avoid harassing our students; it is part of the worldwide academic culture.

Differences in Perceived Workplace Incivility Behaviors in Nursing Schools and Their Frequencies in the Last 12 Months

Male and low-GPA students had higher perceptions of workplace incivility behaviors in nursing schools and their frequency in the past 12 months than female students. Because the findings of this study have not been previously reported in scholarly literature, they are considered novel and unique. Many in-person lessons and clinical interactions have been postponed or canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Male students and faculty may use more remote technologies, which is also associated with various pandemic-related issues, such as high feelings of fear, which can sometimes result in disagreeable and violent behavior.

Gender was also found to be a key predictor of respondents’ risk perception levels, with males suggesting higher risk perception (Thakur, 2020). When it comes to learning online or in a regular classroom, male students are more likely to be stressed than female students (Kabir et al., 2021). Moreover, due to the pandemic, students with lower GPAs are turning to new remote technology, and the virtual classroom has become the industry standard. The difficulties created by the pandemic could result in anxiety and inappropriate behavior, which are expected to be higher in low-GPA students.

Perceived Factors Contributing to Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools

Nursing students were surveyed to identify the primary factors contributing to workplace incivility in nursing schools. The majority of students highlighted stress, aligning with findings from Clark et al. (2021), a challenging workload, consistent with Clark et al.'s work in 2021 and 2013, as well as a lack of knowledge and skills in conflict management, similar to the observations by Mohammadipour et al. (2018).

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the inherent challenges of academic institutions exacerbate the stressors. The prevalent shift to online teaching across educational organizations has become standard practice, placing a heavier workload on both students and faculty. The associated issues stemming from the pandemic contribute to heightened stress levels, ultimately leading to instances of academic incivility among students and faculty members. In light of these challenges, Clark et al. (2021) were pioneers in proposing that faculty members engage in wellness activities to enhance their personal and organizational health by minimizing stress. Additionally, they recommended conflict management continuing education sessions as a means to alleviate stress and address the increased workload.

Perceived Barriers to Nursing Schools to Address or Deal with Workplace Incivility

The students were asked about their perceived barriers to nursing schools when dealing with workplace incivility. Most students reported a lack of administrative assistance and feared professional retaliation.

Lack of administrative support and fear of retaliation remain at the top of the barriers to addressing or dealing with workplace incivility in nursing schools; it requires skilled and effective leadership. This study's findings were consistent with those of a previous study conducted by Clark et al. (2021). They reported that the barriers were a lack of a clear policy to address workplace incivility, a lack of knowledge and skills, a reluctance to question authority or position, and a desire to avoid confrontation or conflict. All of these factors contributed to the perception that barriers existed.

Perceived Strategies to Foster Workplace Civility in Nursing Schools

Nursing students were asked about their perceived strategies to promote workplace civility in nursing schools. Most students reported establishing a code of conduct because it defines acceptable and unacceptable behaviors and raises awareness about workplace civility. Some people lack self-awareness regarding how their behaviors affect others (Like Clark et al., 2021). Other strategies included investing in incivility/civility education and training for effective communication and conflict negotiation. These strategies make sense in light of the above-related factors related to workplace incivility in nursing schools of stress, workload, and conflict management knowledge and skills.

Limitations

Literature on incivility in nursing education focused on faculty–student, student–faculty, and administrator–faculty interactions. However, research was limited to nursing students’ perceptions. Generalizability was hindered by online surveys and convenient sampling. Further studies should address these limitations and explore incivility using the newly developed WICS instrument, especially in developing nations.

Implications

The study emphasizes addressing workplace incivility in nursing schools through research, practice, and policy. Research needs include mixed-methods studies on incivility among nursing faculty to raise awareness and inform workplace conditions. Early assessment is vital for prevention, with post-COVID-19 research recommended. Practical implications advise evaluating behaviors’ impact on workplace culture, refining hiring practices, and emphasizing prompt handling of incivility. Workplace civility fosters effective communication and team harmony, critical in nursing education. Faculty incivility can harm the learning environment and the profession's reputation, impacting students negatively. Policy recommendations advocate a zero-tolerance policy with rigorous monitoring to eradicate incivility.

Conclusion

Workplace incivility in nursing schools was a “mild” issue, and the perceived confidence levels in nursing schools’ abilities to resolve workplace incivility were “moderate.” Most nursing students’ perceived level of civility in the workplace in nursing schools is 65.00%. Nursing school workplaces’ behaviors were “sometimes” uncivil; however, this happens “rarely.” Yet, such incivility should be eradicated because they are accumulative and cyclic.

Workplace civility is the common culture and norm in Jordanian nursing schools, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing students’ perceptions of workplace civility and incivility, factors and barriers related to such incivility, and strategies to prevent it are crucial to improving the workplace in nursing schools for faculty members and students.

A friendly teaching environment is required to promote effective teaching, conflict management, and respectful relationships with others, including students. Nursing faculty members must exemplify civility to foster a healthy academic environment. More research is needed to learn more about workplace incivility in nursing schools.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-son-10.1177_23779608241271694 - Supplemental material for An Online Cross-Sectional Study of Nursing Students’ Perceptions of Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-son-10.1177_23779608241271694 for An Online Cross-Sectional Study of Nursing Students’ Perceptions of Workplace Incivility in Nursing Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Majd T. Mrayyan, Abdullah Algunmeeyn and Hamza Yousef Abunab in SAGE Open Nursing

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to acknowledge the input of all subjects who participated in the study.

Authors’ Contributions

Prof Mrayyan developed the study's conception,abstract,introduction,purpose and significance,literature review,and methodology,did critical revisions,proofread the final paper,and supervised the whole work. Dr. Abunab analyzed the data and wrote the results. Dr. Algunmeeyn wrote the discussion,implications,limitations,summary,conclusion,did critical revisions,and proofread the first draft of the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Considerations

The Hashemite University- Jordan Institutional Review Board approved the study. IRB No. 1/8/2020/2021,dated April 12,2021.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Majd T. Mrayyan

Abdullah Algunmeeyn

Hamza Yousef Abunab

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Al-Jubouri

M. B.

Samson-Akpan

Al-Fayyadh

Machuca-Contreras

F. A.

Unim

Stefanovic

S. M.

Alabdulaziz

H. R.

Oducado

R. M. F.

George

A. N.

Ates

N. A.

Radabutr

Kamau

Almazan

(2021). Incivility among nursing faculty: A multi-country study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(2), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.04.002

Anderson

Kornhaber

West

Cleary

(2022). Incivility and nursing academia: Fouling the proverbial nest. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 43(12), 1160–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2021.2023715

Bence

A. F.

Coetzee

S. K.

Klopper

H. C.

Ellis

(2022). The association between the practice environment and selected nurse educator outcomes in public nursing education institutions: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Education in Practice, 58, 103261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103261

Chihak

. (2018). Faculty to faculty incivility in Iowa nursing education programs. Dissertations and Theses @ UNI. 601. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/601

Clark

C. M.

(2013). National study on faculty-to-faculty incivility: Strategies to promote collegiality and civility. Nurse Educator, 38(3), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e31828dc1b2

Clark

C. M.

Landis

Barbosa-Leiker

(2021). National study on faculty and administrators’ perceptions of civility and incivility in nursing education. Nurse Educator, 46(5), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000948

Clark

C. M.

Olender

Kenski

Cardoni

(2013). Exploring and addressing faculty-to-faculty incivility: A national perspective and literature review. The Journal of Nursing Education, 52(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130319-01

IBM (2017). SPSS statistics for Windows, version 25.0. IBM Corp.

Kabir

Hasan

M. K.

Mitra

D. K.

(2021). E-learning readiness and perceived stress among the university students of Bangladesh during COVID-19: A countrywide cross-sectional study. Annals of Medicine, 53(1), 2305–2314. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2021.2009908

10.

Karaçay

Oflaz

(2021). Exploring faculty-to-faculty incivility among nursing faculty: Related factors, reasons and solutions. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1415–1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13375

11.

LaSala

K. B.

Wilson

Sprunk

(2016). Nursing academic administrators’ lived experiences with incivility and bullying from faculty. Nurse Educator, 41(3), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000234

12.

Lopez

M. L.

(2024). Nursing student perceptions of incivility in academia. Nursing Education Perspectives, 45(4), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.000000000000122

13.

McGee

P. L.

(2021). A descriptive study of faculty-to-faculty incivility in nursing programs in the United States. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(1), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.07.004

14.

Meires

(2018). Workplace incivility: When students bully faculty. Urologic Nursing, 38(5), 251–254. https://doi.org/10.7257/1053-816X.2018.38.5.251

15.

Mohammadipour

Hasanvand

Goudarzi

Ebrahimzadeh

Pournia

(2018). The level and frequency of faculty incivility as perceived by nursing students of lorestan university of medical sciences. Journal of Medicine and Life, 11(4), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2018-0055

16.

Muliira

J. K.

Natarajan

van der Colff

(2017). Nursing faculty academic incivility: Perceptions of nursing students and faculty. BMC Medical Education, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1096-8

17.

Peters

A. B.

(2014). Faculty to faculty incivility: Experiences of novice nurse faculty in academia. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2013.09.007

18.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2019). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

19.

Rad

Ildarabadi

Moharreri

Karimi Moonaghi

(2016). Causes of incivility in Iranian nursing students: A qualitative study. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 4(1), 47.

20.

Rafiee Vardanjani

Parvin

Shafiei

Safdari Dehcheshmeh

(2016). Incivility behavior training of teachers and students in nursing and midwifery department of Shahrekord. Development Strategies in Medical Education, 2(3), 25–37.

21.

Sauer

P. A.

Hannon

A. E.

Beyer

K. B.

(2017). Peer incivility among prelicensure nursing students: A call to action for nursing faculty. Nurse Educator, 42(6), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000375

22.

Sherrod

J. T.

Lewallen

L. P.

(2021). Workplace incivility and its effects on the physical and psychological health of nursing faculty. Nursing Education Perspectives, 42(5), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000839

23.

Sills

M. L.

(2016). Faculty-to-faculty incivility as perceived by nursing faculty. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Southern Mississippi.

24.

Small

S. P.

Cashin

English

Moran

(2024). “It is Essentially About Treating Each Other Well”: Insights from faculty on incivility in nursing education. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 56(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621231204985

25.

Thakur

(2020). Mental health in high school students at the time of COVID-19: A student’s perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(12), 1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.005

26.

Vuolo

J. C.

(2017). Student nurses’ experiences of incivility and the impact on learning and emotional well-being. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 8(4), 102. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v8n4p102

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.02 MB

0.00 MB