Civility
Civility, in essence, means being polite, considerate, and respectful in all situations. Civility can be conducted during conversations with disagreements. It is a sign of respect and determines the quality of growth in a professional role. According to Billante & Saunders (2002), civility has three elements: respect for others, public behavior, self-regulation, and the “common language for communicating respect for one another. Clark (2015) made a great point when she said she felt we would see a positive change if we would listen to each other. We were born with two ears and one mouth and should listen twice as much as we speak. This would deter a lot of uncivil conversations.
Civility in the Workplace
The Clark healthy workplace inventory assessment (HWIA) was completed and scored a seventy and mildly healthy (Clark, 2015). The HWIA assessment had zero completely true (5), twelve somewhat true (4), six neutral (3), two somewhat true (2), and zero completely un-true (1). Before completing the HWIA, I was sure my facility would have scored moderately healthy. I felt my perception of the facility wasn’t as good as I first thought about halfway through the assessment.
According to Clark (2015), employee recruitment, retention, and satisfaction are based heavily on communication, transparency, and respect on the job. Civility in my workplace is lacking but is getting better. My facility was owned by a rather large corporation that made us feel like a number. We were a for-profit hospital and are maximized by profit. A non-profit facility acquired the facility in March 2019, and we have seen significant progress in transparency and civility since acquisition. The HWIA would have been drastically worse had I completed it before the acquisition. We, as a facility, are becoming more civil, employee satisfaction is rising, we are seeing an influx of high-performing RNs coming back to our facility since the acquisition.
Workplace Incivility
Incivility is rude and disrespectful behavior and should not be tolerated in the workplace. Workplace incivility increases negative workplace consequences and outcomes and could be in the form of harassment and bullying (Miner et al., 2018).
I have witnessed incivility on multiple occasions and have been on the receiving end on occasion. We have a prominent physician group with two physicians who are well-known for bullying and harassing staff. They talk down to the bedside RNs in a demeaning way and do this in front of patients and patient families. I was in a room with a post-surgical patient assessing drainage from a Jackson Pratt (JP) drain. The physician walked in and proceeded to let me know in front of the patient that I should not call him at night for concerns that can wait until the AM. He was referring to an elevated temperature I called him about on the patient. The MD didn’t give a surgical or medical order set, and I didn’t have Tylenol to treat an elevated temperature. I didn’t respond to the MD in the room. I notified the MD outside the room that we work on the same team, and I was responsible for informing him of patient needs during my shift. He acted as if I wasn’t speaking to him. This incident was reported to my Director as well as the quality team. This physician and I have not had any negative encounters, and I would assume because I let him know I was a patient advocate, and I did it civilly.
Conclusion
Completing the HWIA has made me look rethink civility and is necessary for all aspects of life. Listening twice as much as we speak is a great place to start and can lead to more civil conversations and interactions. Civility in the workplace has been shown to improve workplace recruitment, retention, and satisfaction. Continued education on communication, transparency, and respect in the workplace is key to achieving and maintaining civility.
References
Billante, N. & Saunders, P. (2002). Why Civility Matters. Policy, 18(3), 32.
Clark, C. (2015). Conversations to inspire and promote a more civil workplace. American nurse
today, 10(11), 18-23.
Miner, K., Diaz, I., Wooderson, R., McDonald, J., Smittick, A., & Lomeli, L. (2018). A
workplace incivility roadmap: Identifying theoretical speedbumps and alternative routes
for future research. Journal of occupational health psychology, 23(3), 320–337.
NURS_6053_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric
|
Excellent |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
Main Posting |
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
|
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
|
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
|
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
|
Main Post: Timeliness |
Posts main post by day 3.
|
|
|
Does not post by day 3.
|
First Response |
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
|
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
|
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
|
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
|
Second Response |
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
|
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
|
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
|
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
|
Participation |
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
|
|
|
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
|