INTRODUCTION:

The dynamism in higher education, driven by market-oriented shifts and global economic forces, has brought about a myriad of challenges. This paper delves into a critical aspect that has gained prominence in the last decade - workplace incivility. Workplace incivility, a form of low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous harmful intent, has significant implications for organizational performance, employee well-being, and the overall culture of an institution. As the private sector plays an increasing role in higher education, the prevalence of workplace incivility has become a cause for concern.

This study focuses on Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various forms of incivility experienced by non-teaching staff. It explores the impact of incivility on employee productivity, job satisfaction, and commitment, while also investigating the underlying factors contributing to its occurrence.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

To identify and analyse the most common forms of incivility experienced by Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions' non-teaching staff.

1. To investigate the impact of incivility on employee productivity, job satisfaction, and commitment.

2. To explore the factors contributing to incivility, including organizational culture, leadership styles, and interpersonal dynamics.

3. To assess the efficacy of existing university strategies for combating incivility and mitigating its negative effects on staff performance.

4. To suggest additional measures and recommendations for reducing incivility and enhancing employee performance at Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

· What are the most common forms of incivility experienced by non-teaching staff in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions?

· How does incivility affect employee productivity, work satisfaction, and commitment?

· What factors contribute to incivility in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions?

· What measures have been put in place to combat incivility, and how effective have they been?

· What additional strategies can be suggested to reduce incivility and improve university staff performance?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

This study holds significance in several aspects. It aims to raise awareness among university stakeholders about the prevalence and consequences of incivility, emphasizing the need for proactive measures. By understanding how incivility affects employee well-being, job satisfaction, and commitment, the study contributes to the development of programs that prioritize a respectful and encouraging work environment. The findings can guide initiatives to improve organizational culture, leadership dynamics, and overall performance outcomes. Furthermore, the study addresses a research gap by providing empirical evidence specific to the context of Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions. Ultimately, the research aims to contribute to the enhancement of the working environment, employee performance, and the overall success of Ghana's higher education sector.

Introduction:

The literature review provides an overview of previous studies and scholarly writings on the impact of incivility on staff performance in higher education institutions. The review encompasses research conducted in various settings, focusing on workplace incivility, its effects on worker performance and well-being, and potential solutions. Additionally, attention is given to the specific context of Ghanaian universities, with a focus on the Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development.

Definition and Types of Incivility:

Incivility is consistently defined in the literature as disrespectful and uncivil behaviour that violates workplace norms and damages interpersonal relationships. Various types of incivility are explored, ranging from exclusionary behaviour and derogatory remarks to public humiliation. Research by Porath and Pearson (2013) indicates that a staggering 98 percent of employees report encountering incivility, with 50 percent experiencing such behaviour at least weekly. The financial implications of incivility are significant, with an estimated annual cost of $14,000 per employee due to project delays and cognitive distractions.

The literature further delves into specific manifestations of incivility, including abusive language, dismissive behaviour, exclusionary actions, undermining behaviours, microaggressions, and cyber harassment. Each form of incivility has distinct consequences, affecting individuals and organizations alike. The discussion highlights the detrimental effects on self-esteem, psychological well-being, teamwork, creativity, trust, and overall work environment.

Incivility in Higher Education Institutions:

Incivility is not exclusive to higher education institutions, and research reveals its prevalence among faculty, staff, and students. The competitive and hierarchical nature of academia, influenced by external forces demanding corporate-like performance, is identified as a contributing factor. The pressure for tenure, promotion, publishing, and research funding creates a competitive environment that may foster aggressive or demeaning actions.

Organizational stress within higher education institutions is acknowledged as a significant factor contributing to incivility. Heavy workloads, time pressures, conflicting responsibilities, and role ambiguity can exacerbate stress levels, leading to lower morale, poor performance, workplace deviance, and conflicts. Additionally, the complexity of roles and responsibilities in academia can result in role ambiguity, misunderstandings, and disrespectful behaviour.

The organizational culture within higher education institutions is recognized as a key determinant of incivility. A culture that prioritizes respect, open communication, and collaboration is more likely to discourage incivility and create a positive work environment. The review emphasizes the need for a multifaceted strategy to combat incivility, including promoting civil discourse, providing training in interpersonal and conflict resolution skills, fostering a supportive work environment, and establishing explicit policies and procedures.

Understanding the prevalence and effects of incivility in higher education is deemed essential for creating a welcoming and productive environment. The literature underscores the need for targeted interventions to address the unique challenges faced by staff, faculty, and students within higher education institutions.

Top of Form

Impact of Incivility on Staff Performance:

Incivility is found to have a profound negative impact on various aspects of staff performance in higher education institutions. Studies indicate that productivity, work satisfaction, loyalty, and overall well-being are adversely affected by workplace incivility. Wilson et al. (2011) highlight the repercussions of incivility on absenteeism, productivity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates. The financial costs associated with nurse turnover, for instance, can be substantial. Incivility can lead to distraction, decreased focus, and a negative work environment, ultimately reducing employees' ability to fully engage in their work tasks.

A hostile work atmosphere created by incivility contributes to lower job satisfaction, making employees feel disrespected and undervalued. This decrease in job satisfaction can have a cascading effect on dedication, morale, and overall workplace involvement. Effective teamwork and communication are hindered by the stress and breakdowns caused by uncivil behaviour, limiting the institution's capacity for creativity and problem-solving.

Constant exposure to incivility results in stress among staff members, leading to feelings of anguish, worry, and helplessness. The chronic stress arising from incivility can have detrimental health and psychological effects, including reduced resiliency, increased absenteeism, and burnout. The toxic work environment fostered by incivility contributes to job-related depression, stress, low levels of involvement, high absence rates, poor performance, and work destruction.

Employees experiencing disrespect may undergo a range of negative emotions, including despair, disappointment, melancholy, fear, worry, perplexity, injury, and loneliness. Moreover, incivility at work has been linked to a decline in staff productivity, job satisfaction, and performance, as well as a weakening of organizational loyalty. Studies indicate that incivility increases employees' desire to leave, contributing to high staff turnover. This turnover not only compromises institutional stability but also results in substantial expenses for hiring, training, and onboarding new employees.

The impact of incivility extends beyond individual staff members to the entire organizational culture of higher education institutions. A culture that tolerates or ignores impolite conduct risks becoming toxic, undermining collaboration, trust, and cooperation. Addressing incivility is crucial for improving employee performance in higher education institutions, requiring awareness, training in interpersonal skills and conflict resolution, clear regulations and repercussions, and the promotion of a culture of respect and gratitude.

Factors Contributing to Incivility in Higher: Education Institutions:

This section explores the root causes of incivility in higher education institutions, considering factors such as corporate culture, leadership principles, workplace demands, interpersonal dynamics, and interactions among various stakeholders.

Workplace incivility persists in higher education institutions due to organizational cultures that either condone or deny the existence of such behaviours while establishing norms favouring occupational inequality. The prevalence of incivility is heavily influenced by organizational culture, with unclear expectations, attitudes, and norms around proper behaviour creating an environment where uncivil behaviour can occur.

Toxic leadership, characterized by a range of self-centered traits detrimental to team success, is identified as a significant contributor to incivility. Leadership styles in higher education institutions, such as authoritarian or aggressive styles, can create power imbalances, lack of transparency, and disregard for employee opinions, fostering an environment where incivility thrives.

Work-related challenges, such as heavy workloads, tight deadlines, inadequate resources, and competing expectations, contribute to tense professional relationships and increase the likelihood of incivility. Stress resulting from these challenges can make individuals less patient, emotionally exhausted, and less able to resolve problems peacefully.

Power dynamics within higher education institutions, including hierarchical structures and imbalances among administrators, academics, and workers, create situations where people misuse their positions, leading to uncivil behaviour. Tenure systems, promotion hierarchies, and academic rank differences may exacerbate power inequities.

Interpersonal conflict, particularly in the academic world, is identified as a primary reason for incivility in higher education institutions. The lack of professional development opportunities and skill-building in interpersonal, conflict-resolution, and communication skills can also contribute to the prevalence of incivility.

Situational characteristics, such as heavy workloads and time constraints, are recognized as potential precursors to incivility. The increasing workload in higher education institutions, coupled with tight deadlines and competing demands, can lead to heightened stress levels and a greater likelihood of uncivil behaviour.

Addressing incivility in higher education requires a comprehensive approach, taking into account organizational culture, leadership styles, workplace challenges, and power dynamics. Strategies to mitigate incivility include promoting a positive organizational culture, addressing toxic leadership, providing professional development opportunities, and managing work-related challenges to create a respectful and collaborative work environment.

Strategies to Address Incivility:

To effectively address and prevent incivility in higher education institutions, a multifaceted strategy is crucial. The following strategies can be implemented to foster a respectful and inclusive work environment.

Establish Clear Policies:

Create and communicate clear norms and guidelines for acceptable behaviour, along with penalties for incivility. The implementation of programs like the CREW Intervention Model, which involves regular meetings to collaboratively address concerns contributing to a hostile work environment, can be beneficial.

Promote Awareness and Education:

Offer education and communication training to raise awareness and reduce the occurrence of incivility. Conduct public awareness campaigns and provide training sessions on effective communication, conflict resolution, and interpersonal skills.

Encourage Reporting and Confidentiality: Implement policies defining incivility, establishing a clear strategy for confidential reporting, and ensuring consequences for perpetrators. Establish channels for employees to report incidents while maintaining confidentiality to create a supportive reporting environment.

Strengthen Leadership and Accountability: Provide leadership development programs to help leaders foster a respectful workplace. Leaders should set a positive example, address incivility promptly, and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Leadership should also offer assistance and resources for conflict resolution.

Foster a Positive Organizational Culture: Actively work to develop a positive organizational culture that values and encourages polite behaviour. Promote open communication, teamwork, and gratitude for contributions. Create channels for employee feedback and suggestions to foster inclusivity.

Implement Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Establish mechanisms for resolving workplace conflicts, ensuring a supportive environment that actively addresses and resolves disputes among organizational members.

Provide Support and Resources:

Offer resources and assistance, such as support groups, employee assistance programs, or counselling, to individuals who have encountered or witnessed incivility. Creating a safe space for sharing experiences can contribute to rehabilitation and well-being.

Regular Evaluation and Feedback:

Conduct regular reviews and surveys to assess the prevalence of incivility and the effectiveness of implemented solutions. Collect input from employees to identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments.

Implementing these strategies requires a long-term commitment from higher education institutions to create a courteous and inclusive work atmosphere, enhancing staff well-being, collaboration, and overall performance.

Incivility in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions:

This section shifts the focus to the specific context of Ghanaian higher education institutions, with an emphasis on the Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development. The literature review recognizes limited research on incivility in Ghanaian higher education institutions but highlights factors that may contribute to incivility:

Cultural Factors:

Ghanaian societal norms, characterized by hierarchical relationships and power differentials, may influence workplace interactions and contribute to incivility if not managed appropriately. The importance of studying non-WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) samples is emphasized to understand culture-specific behaviour patterns.

Workload and Pressure:

Heavy workloads, tight deadlines, and limited resources in Ghanaian higher education institutions may contribute to increased stress among staff, potentially heightening tensions and making incivility more likely.

Role Ambiguity and Conflicts:

Role ambiguity, unclear expectations, and conflicts arising from opposing viewpoints or goals can lead to misunderstandings and disputes among employees, potentially resulting in incivility.

Leadership and Communication:

Leadership styles and communication techniques in Ghanaian higher education institutions may impact the occurrence of incivility. Autocratic leadership or inadequate communication channels can exacerbate power imbalances and contribute to uncivil behaviour.

Student-Faculty Interactions:

Interactions between students and faculty members can be a source of incivility, with disruptive student behaviour or uncivil treatment by faculty impacting the learning environment.

Summary of Literature Review:

The literature review emphasizes the critical importance of addressing incivility in higher education institutions globally, with a focus on the Ghanaian context. The strategies proposed, such as establishing clear policies, promoting awareness, encouraging reporting, strengthening leadership, fostering a positive organizational culture, implementing conflict resolution mechanisms, providing support, and ensuring regular evaluation, form a comprehensive approach to address and prevent incivility. This holistic strategy is essential for creating a respectful, inclusive, and productive work environment that enhances staff well-being and overall institutional success.

METHODOLOGY AND THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The main aim of this study was to evaluate how incivility affects the job performance of non-teaching staff in specific public universities in Ghana. To accomplish this objective, a research approach that combines qualitative and quantitative survey methods, as outlined by Patton (1999), was utilized, ensuring a comprehensive examination. In his research, Patton (1999) defined triangulation as the approach of integrating various methods or sources of data in qualitative research to achieve a comprehensive understanding of phenomena.

Researchers can enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of their findings, elevating the overall quality of their research, by embracing a variety of methods and data sources. The most common type of triangulation, according to Williamson (2005), is methodological triangulation. Studies employing this approach often entail gathering two or more sets of data using the same research methodology, frequently drawn from qualitative data sources.

As posited by Williams (2005) methodological triangulation is the common form of triangulation. Researchers employ triangulation by utilising two or more sets of data collection while maintaining the same methodology which in most cases is gathered from qualitative data sources. Patton (1999) provided a definition for "triangulation" as the utilization of both qualitative and quantitative survey methods to accomplish a specific research objective. In qualitative research, as defined by Patton (1999), triangulation entails the utilization of multiple approaches or data sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

By integrating a variety of methods and data sources, researchers bolster the credibility and reliability of their findings, thereby raising the overall quality of their research.

Before commencing the research, formal authorization was sought from the Registrars of all the universities involved. Securing this permission was crucial, and it involved providing a comprehensive explanation of the research's objectives. Additionally, a pilot study was carried out at a public university that was not part of the main research to enhance the quality of the questionnaires in terms of their structure and content. Subsequently, the questionnaires were distributed to the entire administrative staff across the four selected public universities, encompassing a total of 120 non-teaching staff members from a population of 480.

In order to collect the necessary data for their research, the researchers considered the geographical locations of the universities they had selected, namely the University of Ghana (UG), University of Education, Winneba (UEW), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), and Akenten Appiah Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED). They opted to utilize Google Forms to create questionnaires that included both closed-ended and open-ended questions. This approach was chosen to evaluate how incivility impacts the job performance of non-teaching staff in the universities mentioned above.

Hermanowicz (2002) highlighted that while interviews can provide valuable insights into complex behaviors, they can also be resource-intensive and time-consuming. Nevertheless, they offer a unique opportunity to gain essential insights into how individuals perceive the social reality around them. Despite the challenges and labour-intensive nature of interviews, they offer a valuable avenue for gathering crucial information about participants' perspectives on social reality.

Through interviews, researchers can delve deeper into the thoughts and viewpoints of participants, making this method highly effective for studying intricate behaviours and social phenomena.

In the context of this study, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted at each of the four selected public universities. These interviews were deemed to yield significantly richer and more comprehensive data. To sum it up, our careful and thorough research methodology, which includes using a triangulation approach, obtaining proper authorization, conducting pilot studies, designing comprehensive questionnaires, and carrying out interviews, was deliberately crafted to ensure the strength and dependability of our research outcomes. By employing this blend of research techniques, our objective is to provide a deeper understanding of how incivility influences the job performance of non-teaching staff in public universities in Ghana. Through our efforts, we aim to contribute valuable insights to the existing pool of knowledge in this field.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

This section presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents who participated in the study, offering valuable insights into the composition of the non-teaching staff within the selected higher education institutions in Ghana.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Variables	Responses	Frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	300	75.0
Sex	Female	100	25.0
Years of working in the selected institution	0-3	16	4.0
	4-7	216	54.0
	8-11	118	29.5
	12-15	41	10.3
	16-19	9	2.3
Staff status	Junior Staff	48	12.0
	Senior Staff	252	63.0
	Senior Member	100	25.0
Employment status	Part-time	80	20.0
Employment status	Full-time	320	80.0

Source: (Field Data, 2023)

The gender distribution among the respondents revealed an interesting pattern as shown in Table 1. More males (75%) took part in the study than females (25%) in the selected universities. This gender disparity highlighted a notable imbalance within the non-teaching staff cohort, with a clear majority of males.

The gender distribution could have implications for workplace dynamics and should be considered in the context of workplace incivility research (Ikpeama, 2023). The analysis of respondents' years of service in their respective institutions showcases a diverse range of tenures. The largest proportion, accounting for 54.0% reported having worked for "4-7 years." This suggests a substantial segment of the non-teaching staff population in Ghanaian higher education institutions has a moderate level of experience.

However, it is essential to note the presence of long-serving staff members, with 10.3% reporting "12-15 years" or more of service. This diversity in tenure indicates the need to consider the potential impact of incivility on both newer and more seasoned employees (Toku, 2014).

The staff status of the respondents provided insights into the hierarchical structure within the non-teaching staff category. A significant majority, comprising 63.0%, identified as "Senior Staff." Additionally, 25.0% of respondents held the designation of "Senior Member." This distribution underscores the presence of a hierarchical organization within the workforce, with a substantial number occupying senior positions. However, it is noteworthy that "Junior Staff" also form a part of the workforce, making up 12.0% of the respondents. This diversity in staff status should be considered when exploring the impact of incivility on different employee groups (Na'imah, 2023). The analysis of employment status among respondents revealed an interesting dichotomy. A majority, 80.0%, reported being in full-time employment, indicating a significant commitment to their roles within the institutions. In contrast, 20.0% of respondents reported part-time employment, suggesting the presence of staff members who may not be fully engaged in their roles on a full-time basis. This distinction in employment status could influence the extent to which individuals experience and respond to workplace incivility (Nwokonko, 2017).

4.2 Workers' Working Environment and Incivility Incidents:

This section presents the findings related to the working environment of the non-teaching staff in Ghanaian higher education institutions and their experiences or witnessing of workplace incivility.Top of Form

Table 1: Workers working environment, experienced or witnessed incivility in the workplace.

Variables	Responses	Frequency	Percentage
Working environment	High stress	215	53.8
	Medium stress	131	32.8
	Low stress	54	13.5
Workers experienced or witnessed incidents of incivility in your workplace	Yes	339	84.8
	No	61	15.3
Frequently of incivility occurring in the workplace	Rarely	13	3.3
	Occasionally	39	9.8
	Frequently	127	31.8
	Very frequently	221	55.3
Source: (Field Data, 2023)

The workers' working environment stress levels revealed significant insights into the prevailing conditions within these institutions. A substantial percentage, accounting for 53.8% of the respondents, reported experiencing a "high stress" working environment. This suggests that a considerable proportion of non-teaching staff members in Ghanaian higher education institutions operate in conditions characterized by elevated stress levels. Moreover, 32.8% reported a "medium stress" environment, while 13.5% indicated a "low stress" working atmosphere. These stress levels are crucial to consider when examining the impact of incivility, as heightened stress can exacerbate the negative effects of uncivil behaviors (Mailumo, 2018).

Respondents were asked whether they had experienced or witnessed incidents of incivility in their workplace. An overwhelming majority, constituting 84.8% of the sample, affirmed that they had indeed experienced or witnessed workplace incivility. This finding highlights the prevalence of incivility within Ghanaian higher education institutions and underscores the significance of addressing this issue. Only 15.3% of respondents reported not experiencing or witnessing such incidents, suggesting that a relatively small minority of non-teaching staff members in these institutions have been spared from such encounters (Akanfaba, 2021).

The respondents who reported experiencing or witnessing incivility were further questioned about the frequency of these occurrences in their workplace. The data revealed a range of responses, providing valuable insights into the persistence of incivility. A small proportion, 3.3%, indicated that incivility occurred "rarely." However, a more substantial 9.8% reported incivility as happening "occasionally." Importantly, a significant number of respondents indicated frequent occurrences, with 31.8% reporting incivility happening "frequently" and a striking 55.3% reporting it as happening "very frequently." This distribution suggests that incivility is not only prevalent but also persistent within the workplace, potentially exerting substantial negative effects on employee well-being and performance (Rath and Sahai, 2019).

Workers experience with superiors and co-workers:

This section presents the findings related to the workers experience with their superiors and co-workers in Ghanaian higher education institutions.

The workers experienced situations where their supervisors or co-workers paid little attention to their statements or showed minimal interest in their opinions (Mean = 3.3375, SD = 0.80325) was the second highest of workers experienced situation in the workplace. This suggested that a significant portion of respondents encountered instances where their input received inadequate attention or interest from their colleagues or superiors. This finding indicates a concerning lack of active engagement and listening within the workplace thus, when employees perceive that their contributions are disregarded, it can lead to feelings of undervaluation and diminished job satisfaction (Onyeizugbe, 2021). Also, employees peers or superiors doubted their judgment on a matter over which they had responsibility (Mean = 3.4525, SD = 0.74102).

This indicated a substantial number of respondents experienced situations where their decision-making abilities were questioned by their peers or superiors. These doubts can be detrimental to an individual's self-esteem and job performance. Frequently doubting employees' judgments can hinder their confidence and overall effectiveness in carrying out their responsibilities (Ashraf, 2021).

Employees experienced hostile non vernal behaviors (Mean = 3.2300, SD = 0.82389). This indicated a significant number of respondents reported experiencing hostile non-verbal behaviors such as hostile looks, stares, or sneers from colleagues or supervisors. These non-verbal expressions of hostility contribute to a toxic work environment (Banahene, 2019) and can have adverse effects on employees' psychological well-being and overall job satisfaction. Also, such behaviors need to be addressed to promote a more respectful and supportive workplace culture. Moreover, employees’ colleagues or superiors addressed them in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately (Mean = 3.2100, SD = 0.81398). Top of Form

Table 3 assessed how workers perceived the impact of incivility on their overall work environment. Respondents were given several options to describe this impact. The data indicates that the majority of respondents (59.8%) believed that incivility leads to decreased productivity and performance. This perception aligns with previous research that has consistently shown that workplace incivility can have a detrimental effect on employee performance (Na'imah, 2023).

Furthermore, 21.0% of respondents indicated that incivility negatively affects morale and job satisfaction, which can have cascading effects on the work environment. A smaller percentage (12.8%) mentioned that incivility creates a hostile work environment, which can be a serious concern as it may lead to increased turnover and reduced organizational cohesion (Onyeizugbe, 2021).

Also, the Table 5 provided insights into workers' perceptions of the university's effectiveness in addressing incidents of incivility and its impact on staff performance. Most of respondents (75.5%) do not believe that the university is effectively addressing incidents of incivility.

This finding suggested that there may be concerns about the organization's response to workplace incivility, and there could be room for improvement in the university's policies and procedures related to addressing and preventing incivility (Banahene, 2020). Some of the respondents (20.0%) expressed confidence in the university's ability to effectively address incidents of incivility and understand its implications for staff performance. Additionally, 4.5% of respondents indicated that they are unsure about the university's effectiveness in addressing incivility, highlighting the need for clearer communication and transparency regarding organizational efforts in this regard.

Workplace incivility is a concerning issue as it can have a detrimental effect on employee well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity (Akanfaba, 2021). The data in this table emphasizes the importance of understanding how university employees perceive the institution's response to such matters. Those who doubt the university's effectiveness may experience persistent concerns related to workplace stress and job satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS:

This chapter encapsulates the research's key findings, draws conclusive insights, and provides recommendations based on the identified issues. Additionally, it emphasizes the research's contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Summary of Research Findings:

The investigation illuminated the prevalence of workplace incivility among non-teaching staff in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions. Instances of incivility encompassed neglect of opinions, hostile behaviours, and unprofessional communication, indicative of a workplace lacking respect and effective communication. Emotional responses revealed negative impacts on well-being, job satisfaction, and work commitment, leading to reduced work efforts directed at uncivil individuals. The study underscored the need to examine organizational culture, leadership styles, and interpersonal dynamics contributing to incivility, emphasizing the importance of reassessing policies to address this issue effectively.

Conclusions:

In conclusion, this research illuminates the widespread issue of workplace incivility affecting non-teaching staff in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions. The identified behaviours significantly impact emotional well-being, job satisfaction, and work commitment. Importantly, doubts regarding the effectiveness of existing strategies to address incivility highlight the necessity for proactive organizational measures. It is imperative for institutions to foster a respectful and supportive environment, essential for individual well-being, productivity, and a positive workplace atmosphere.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:

· Implement training programs addressing workplace incivility for all staff levels, focusing on communication, active listening, conflict resolution, and fostering a respectful workplace culture.

· Review and update policies to effectively address incivility, including clear reporting mechanisms, swift investigations, and consequences for uncivil behaviour.

· Establish leadership development programs to train supervisors and managers in promoting respectful interactions to shape a positive organizational culture.

· Conduct regular surveys to monitor incivility prevalence and impact, involving employees to ensure their voices are heard.

SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

While providing valuable insights, this study prompts further exploration. Recommendations for future research include:

· Broadening the scope to assess the generalizability of findings beyond the current study context.

· Conducting longitudinal studies to understand the sustained impact of incivility on non-teaching staff in Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions over time.

This research sets a foundation for addressing workplace incivility and enhancing the well-being and performance of non-teaching staff in higher education institutions.

REFERENCE:

1. Akanfaba, J. A. Leadership Styles and Conflict Management among Teachers in Second Cycle Institutions in the Bolgatanga Municipality (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Coast). 2021.

2. Ashraf, F., and Khan, M. A. Curtailing Job Insecurity and Counterproductive Work Behaviours as Bullying Effects in Pakistani Academia: Work Engagement as a Moderator. Journal of Research in Social Sciences. 2021; 9(1): 21-41.

3. Banahene, S., Okyere, E., and Mensah, A. A. Examining students’incivility impact on engagement: The mediation role of satisfaction. 2020

4. Ikpeama, C. R., Olaitan, M. T., and Ngwu, C. N. Stressors and coping strategies among working mothers in a Nigerian university: Implications for social work practice. Journal of Social Work in Developing Societies. 2023; 5(1).

5. Mailumo, P. I. Occupational stress and tecahers’job effeciveness in secondary schools in the North Central States, Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation). 2018

6. Na'imah, T., Tjahjono, H. K., and Madjid, A. Workplace Well-Being: The Roles of Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Justice and Workplace Spirituality. Quality-Access to Success. 2023; 24(193).

7. Nwokonko, R. N. Managerial Role Performance of Women Leaders and Surbodinates Work Attitudes in the Universities, South-West, Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, University of Lagos (Nigeria)). 2017

8. Onyeizugbe, C., Ndubuisi-Okolo, P., and Odia, R. I. Workplace deviant behaviour and performance of tertiary institutions in Edo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. 2021; 5(9): 889-904.

9. Rath, N., and Sahai, A. K. Organisational politics, peer support, and rude leadership: Employee attrition. SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 2019; 16(4): 118-125.

10. Tandoh, G. F. Effect of organisational justice on organisational citizenship behaviour among course tutors of College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Coast). 2020.

11. Toku, E. Conflict management practices in selected basic schools in the Ashanti Region (Doctoral dissertation). 2014.

Received on 22.01.2024 Modified on 02.03.2024

Asian Journal of Management. 2024;15(2):142-152.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2024.00024

During the past year, workers ever in a situation in which their supervisor or co-workers:	N	Rank	Mean	Std. Deviation	T	Sig. (2-tailed)
Paid little attention to your statements or showed little interest in your opinions	400	2^nd	3.4925	0.79783	87.550	0.000
Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you had responsibility	400	4th	3.4525	0.74102	93.182	0.000
Gave you hostile looks, stares, or sneers	400	11th	3.2300	0.82389	78.408	0.000
Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately	400	12th	3.2100	0.81398	78.872	0.000
Interrupted or "spoke over" you	400	6th	3.3675	0.78676	85.604	0.000
Rated you lower than you deserved on an evaluation	400	10th	3.2650	0.74240	87.958	0.000
Yelled, shouted, or swore at you	400	9th	3.3125	0.79777	83.044	0.000
Made insulting or disrespectful remarks about you	400	3rd	3.4725	0.76858	90.361	0.000
Ignored you or failed to speak to you	400	13th	3.1575	0.77083	81.925	0.000
Accused you of incompetence	400	1^st	3.5950	0.73983	97.185	0.000
Targeted you with angry outbursts or "temper tantrums"	400	5th	3.3925	0.74150	91.504	0.000
Made jokes at your expense	400	7^th	3.3375	0.80325	83.100	0.000
Other experiences and perceptions of employees in the workplace	400	8th	3.3200	0.69195	95.960	0.000

Variables	Responses	%	%
Workers emotions after experiencing some of the behaviors	Sadness	26	6.5
	Confusion	40	10.0
	Nervous	77	19.3
	Frustration	217	54.3
	Self-doubt	24	6.0
	Impatience	7	1.8
	Anger	9	2.3
Workers emotions to the point that others have noticed after experiencing some of the behaviors	Reduced your overall work effort (temporarily or permanently)	354	88.5
	Reduced your work effort specifically for the person or person (s) who treated you in an uncivil manner	46	11.5
Workers experienced of the behaviors from either the superior or subordinates	Your supervisor	134	33.5
	A co-worker (or colleague) with a higher job title or level than you	177	44.3
	A co-worker (or colleague) with the same or similar job title or level as you	49	12.3
	A co-worker (or colleague) with a lower job title or level than you	40	10.0
Number of times workers experience such behaviors	Daily	138	34.5
	Weekly	150	37.5
	Every few months	112	28.0