Selective Incivility: Undermining diversity and inclusion in supply chains

From the January-February 2025 edition of Supply Chain Management Review.

January-February 2025

As much discussion and deployment of artificial intelligence took place in 2024, 2025 is shaping up to be an even bigger year. This year will likely see the acceleration of AI, and specifically Generative AI, into…

Browse this issue archive.

Access your online digital edition.

Download a PDF file of the January-February 2025 issue.

With an increasingly diverse workforce and society, companies are embracing diversity, realizing its importance from both economic and social justice perspectives. Several large companies, such as UPS, Tesla, Target, and PepsiCo, have instituted programs mandating or encouraging increased utilization of minority- and women-owned business enterprises (MWBEs).  Notably, Fortune 200 companies committed to spending more than $50 billion with MWBEs between January 2020 and March 2022 (Stewart, 2022, Fortune). These are positive initiatives and align with traditional notions of diversity in supply chains—defined by ownership of the supplier firm. In the following discussion, we expand the notion of supply chain diversity to include employment demographics within firms, making the case that diverse employees are fundamental in realizing the benefits of new ideas, perspectives, and innovation throughout supply chains.

Despite commitments to achieving diverse supply chains, it remains a challenge. Meri Stevens, J&J Consumer Health’s Worldwide vice president of supply chain and delivery, recently reported that the biggest constraint of the J&J supply chain involves its people. She notes “we’re fighting for people every single day” and she focuses on building cultures that embrace all employees (Trebilcock, 2022, para. 17, Supply Chain Management Review). This “fight for people” pertains to not only bringing diverse suppliers and people into organizations (i.e., proportions of diverse members) but also embedding them in the supply chain through processes that encourage inclusion.

As Deloitte recently stated with respect to women in supply chains, “inclusion is the competitive advantage” (Maurelli, 2020, para. 1, Deloitte Insights) and organizations will need to develop a strategy to “attract, develop, retain, and leverage this powerful talent pool” (para. 2). Inclusion is perception-based (in contrast to diversity, which is based on numerical representation) and is defined as “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the workgroup through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011, p. 1265, Journal of Management). Diversity can exist prior to inclusion, but without inclusion, diversity is much less likely to be sustainable (Nishii, 2013, Academy of Management Journal). As Sheri Hinish, IBM’s global leader for sustainability, notes: “If you’re looking for a recipe, diversity is the first step, but you must create equitable spaces to get the employee experience right. Trust, fostering belonging, and embracing the very thing that makes us human—our differences and emotional connection—through purpose and values. This is the future of work across global supply chains” (Knowles, 2022, para. 10, Sustainability).

Organizations and supply chain management must now identify and address factors that undermine inclusion. Here we will provide evidence that selective incivility (i.e., disrespect and disregard disproportionately targeted toward marginalized employees, violating workplace norms of respect; Cortina, 2008, Academy of Management Review) acts as a form of modern discrimination and is capable of undermining ambitions of diversity and inclusion both within and between organizations. Although experienced by individuals, the effects of incivility can have team and organizational outcomes, radiating outward to affect type and quality of buyer-supplier relationships, retention and attraction of talent, and an organization’s culture and reputation. We explore the following questions: How does selective incivility interfere with obtaining a diverse and inclusive supply chain? Within organizations, how does selective incivility affect the diversity of the workforce? Our intent is to draw out important and emerging findings from across management, organizational behavior, and supply chain literature in order to spur new lines of inquiry and action.

The insidious nature of incivility

Over the last 25 years, research in management literature has documented the insidious phenomenon of workplace incivility. Incivility is characterized as rude and discourteous behavior, which is ambiguous in its intent to harm (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, Academy of Management Review). Notably, incivility carries no overt reference to gender, race, or any other social identity characteristic. Examples of incivility from research across sectors include interrupting, subtly undermining someone’s credibility, and speaking in a condescending manner. While these actions may seem relatively mundane, they have real and lingering effects (e.g., burnout, lower job satisfaction, lower commitment to the organization, and turnover).

Negative outcomes are not only for those directly targeted; research on a U.S. midwestern transportation agency finds those who witness incivility also experience job dissatisfaction, and at the team level, decreased effectiveness of quality management practices (Morrow et al., 2011, Transportation Research). Further evidence reveals bottom-line implications at the store level: when employees are more uncivil, stores experience inventory shrink, partially attributable to employee theft and shoplifting (Jensen et al., 2019, Journal of Organizational Behavior). Collectively, the cost of incivility to organizations has been conservatively estimated at $14,000 per employee annually (Porath & Pearson, 2013, Harvard Business Review).

Unfortunately, incivility is not a rare experience; 50% of employees reported being treated rudely at least once per week (Porath & Pearson, 2013). However, on account of the ambiguous nature of rude behavior (e.g., targets are left to wonder “was it something I said?” or “maybe they are just having a bad day”), incivility may seem too trivial to report. Only 1% to 6% of targets report incivility to their superiors (Cortina & Magley, 2009, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology), leaving it undetected by organizations.

Selective incivility as a modern form of discrimination

While research has found serious costs of general incivility (i.e., incivility experienced regardless of social identity), our concern with respect to supply chain diversity pertains to experiences of selective incivility (i.e., incivility experienced at higher rates by marginalized employees). Several labor laws prevent overt forms of discrimination against historically disadvantaged employee groups (e.g., women, racialized people, migrants, older people, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ people), including Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, modern forms of discrimination, such as selective incivility, exist under the radar of policies and laws.

Theories of modern discrimination propose that overt bigotry and prejudice are now less common, but that these sentiments remain. That is, modern racists and modern sexists openly endorse values of social equality and denounce racism and sexism, but at the same time inwardly, often implicitly, hold negative beliefs regarding marginalized employees (Cortina et al., 2013, Journal of Management). This leads to behaviors that take on subtle and rationalizable forms of discrimination, such as selective incivility. For example, someone who ignores the contributions of a woman in a meeting can deny that this was on account of her gender (i.e., “I’m not sexist”) or excuse their behavior for another reason (e.g., “I didn’t hear her”), and yet is guided by implicit stereotypes about women at work (“Men understand supply chain better”). We see consistent patterns of disparate mistreatment: meta-analyses find non-white employees report more incivility than whites (McCord et al., 2018, Journal of Applied Psychology), and this holds true for cyber-incivility as well (e.g., receiving rude emails, lack of response to virtual meeting requests; Daniels & Thornton, 2020, Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal)

What selective incivility looks like

In the context of buyer-supplier relationship. Given the reliance on contractual negotiations, supply chain management can appear transactional, leading some to believe civility might be a waste of time. On the contrary, the examples below demonstrate that acts of incivility can serve as powerful forces driving attitudes, behaviors, and subsequent decisions to remain in a buyer-supplier relationship. This list is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

Dismissive behavior that ignores queries or concerns.

• An electric fan manufacturer discussed how they retaliated against a buyer: “This buyer was really rude and showed no respect for us. We contacted him several times and he never returned our calls. And in the end, he asked to renew the contract, and guess what, we quit. We have found another buyer who treats us much nicer.” (Liu et al., 2012, p. 365, Journal of Operations Management).

Unsubstantiated doubts of competence or capabilities.

• “I just can’t see you building something that scales.” A potential investor said to Temie Giwa-Tubosun—an African woman and founder of LifeBank, which provides life-saving medical supplies across Africa (Giwa-Tubosun, 2021, TED Conferences).
• “As a woman of color operating in many predominately White environments… if I bring one of my male, White, or senior colleagues to a client meeting, the client will speak directly to my colleague, sometimes not even glancing my way, as if I’m not in the room at all and despite the expertise I might bring to that conversation.” Pamela Fuller, chief thought leader on inclusion and bias at FranklinCovey and top global sales leader (Fuller et al., 2020, p. 8, The Leader’s Guide to Unconscious Bias).

Abrupt communication that is unprofessional or harsh.

• “Working with account reps, they work directly with the customer, so they are in contact with the customer, so if the customer is yelling at them, they are going to be yelling at us, and then I’m like ‘I don’t have a truck at 7 a.m. to pick up this load,’ and they don’t understand. They are like ‘Why? Are you not doing your job correctly?’” (Smith, 2017, p. 89, Employees Communicating within Transportation and Logistics Organizations, dissertation)

Exclusion from networking events

• As explained by Blount and Li, supply chain researchers: “Often times, relationships are formed on golf courses, at dinners or cocktail parties. Minority businesses traditionally do not get the same opportunities to interact with large buying organization purchasers in social settings due to discriminatory practices.” (2021, p. 6-7, Journal of Supply Chain Management)

These examples show the implications for diverse members and their organizations: buyer switching, an unfunded new start-up, exclusion of novel viewpoints, lowered self-esteem, and a lack of networking opportunities.

In the context of intraorganizational relationships. Selective incivility manifests within organizations between members, be they supervisors, coworkers, or subordinates. Some examples of this can include:

Communicating in a condescending manner

• “We weren’t learning what we needed, and then, when we had questions, people acted like we were stupid,” Nelson, an experienced new hire in the high-tech sector of the transportation industry reported. He quit within five weeks, costing the organization salary, recruiting, screening, and training costs. (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 94, The cost of bad behavior).

Unfair criticism

• “During the first years of my career, Richie was my mentor. At the time we’d meet every week or two to talk about my progress. For even the smallest errors he berated me. Eventually, the self-confidence that I  had at the beginning was all but gone.” Mary, a professional at the height of her career, eventually left the organization for another (Pearson & Porath, 2009, p. 67).

Doubting one’s authority over a matter for which they are responsible.

• “I felt like I was never taken seriously … especially by men in the office. I would say things or make presentations or do projects and I feel like everybody just kind of thought I was a joke. Like who is like this little girl that they hired to work here?” Lynn, a manufacturing projects manager (Dorrance Hall & Gettings, 2020, p. 492, Communication Monographs).

These examples indicate how subtle acts of incivility have lasting effects on individuals and organizations in terms of lost talent, wasted training and recruitment resources, and diverse perspectives overlooked.

Mapping selective incivility’s effects on diversity in supply chains

Troublingly, a meta-analysis by Jones and colleagues indicates that subtle forms of discrimination (such as selective incivility) have lasting effects on individuals and organizations, with outcomes comparable to blatant forms. In the following, we present a conceptual model to explain how selective incivility can affect: 1) the diversity of supply chains and 2) diversity within supply chain firms (see Figure 1).

 

While each of the above examples may or may not seem extraordinary, selective incivility can erode feelings of inclusion, resulting in a variety of outcomes for individuals, teams, organizations, and ultimately supply chains. Broadly speaking, social exchange theory can be used to understand this process. It states that individuals do a cost-benefit analysis of social transactions and evaluate them based in part on the disruption of norms of exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, Journal of Management). Incivility is a disruption and thus is interpreted as a “cost” associated with the relationship. This can be enough for people to pull back from relationships or leave them all together.

When selective incivility occurs within buyer-supplier relationships and within firms, diverse individuals experience costs resulting in a variety of outcomes (e.g., buyer-supplier switching, increased employment turnover, see Figure 1). We emphasize that contractual and employment relationships are complex and rely on many psychological, social, and economic processes. In the following we detail some potential mechanisms and outcomes, as suggested by social exchange theory.

Consequences of selective incivility in buyer-supplier relationships. First, we suggest that selective incivility can bring about supplier switching by diverse suppliers and buyers, stemming from perceptions of interactional injustice. Interactions that include derogatory statements, disrespect, and rudeness are viewed as unjust, and research by Liu and colleagues finds that injustice can erode commitment and investment by both parties. Because selective incivility may result in perceptions of interactional injustice by diverse employees, their commitment to the relationship may wane and they may switch their partner.

Selective incivility may also decrease the tendency to launch new contracts or expand current agreements with existing partners, demonstrating a suboptimal partnership. Trust likely plays a fundamental role here as it is essential for successful contracts. For example, suppliers’ trust with buyers (i.e., openness, positive mutual understanding, honesty, and respect) boosts benefit/risk sharing and information sharing (Ha et al., 2011, International Journal of Operations & Production Management). When trust is undercut by selective incivility, it may weaken existing interfirm relationships.

Notably to date, the supply chain literature has largely not examined bias or discrimination in shaping these relationships. However, Krause and colleagues’ findings provide one indication of the potentiality: diverse suppliers cited that “old-boys’ networks” shape their ability to foster trust and secure contracts. Further, an organization’s reputation may be at risk if it has problematic players that perpetuate selective incivility – taking incivility from an individual problem to one that affects interfirm relationships. As diverse buyers and suppliers are driven out of or retract from alliances and contracts in response to selective incivility, the diversity of supply chains suffers.

Consequences of selective incivility within firms. Selective incivility can also help explain underrepresentation of diverse employees in the supply chain workforce. In supply chain leadership there continues to be underrepresentation of people with marginalized identities, particularly at the highest ranks: for instance, while women of color comprise 14% of supply chain organizations, they comprise only about 1% of chief supply chain officers (Stiffler & Chumakov, 2021, Gartner). More generally, supply chain researchers have called attention to the potential link between equity, diversity and inclusion, and labor shortages in trucking and logistic systems, calling for the need to understand the barriers and challenges facing younger employees, women, and racialized minorities (Shubair, 2022, Brighter World). Here we examine selective incivility as one such barrier to diversity within firms.

First, incivility has the ability to erode perceptions of support from the organization. Again, based on social exchange theory, employment can be viewed as a trade of effort by the employee for benefits and social rewards from the employer (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002, Journal of Applied Psychology). This reciprocation also applies when considering the success of the diverse workforce. Triana and Garcia note that “in order for organizations to achieve success with a diverse workforce, employees need to perceive that their organization supports and values the contributions of all employees” (2009, p. 942, Journal of Organizational Behavior).  Troublingly, selective incivility, especially when appraised as discriminatory, can serve as a meta-message of diverse employees’ value within the organization. This devaluation and disrespect erode the positive exchange relationship between the organization and diverse members.

Selective incivility also undermines the commitment of diverse employees and makes them more likely to turn over. One way this occurs is through the development of a toxic culture, which can sap workforce participation. For example, data from 34 million online employee profiles and 1.4 million Glassdoor reviews indicate that “toxic corporate culture” was the single strongest predictor of employee turnover, about 10 times as strong as compensation (Sull et al., 2022, MIT Sloan Management Review). For example, as one former employee of a large retailer reported, the company has “…zero transparency, zero respect for employees, negative work culture, harassment of employees, no accountability for management, favoritism…” (Glassdoor, 2023). In order to explain how incivility contributes to a negative culture, Andersson and Pearson (1999) developed a spiral theory wherein the target of incivility may perpetuate and become an instigator—of incivility, or even of more severe mistreatment—radiating throughout an organization. Subsequent empirical work finds evidence of what has been termed an “incivility contagion” (Foulk et al., 2016, Journal of Applied Psychology). Selective incivility may function similarly, perpetuating a pattern of biased treatment that becomes normative, making diverse members feel disrespected and subsequently less committed to the organization. Further, a reputation for toxic culture (for example, shared via Glassdoor) may also repel diverse workers from seeking employment at a firm.   

Moving the needle on inclusion and diversity

Increasingly, leaders roll out formalized statements, as Carol Tomé did early in her tenure as CEO of United Parcel Service (UPS): “We know there is no place in any community anywhere in the world for racism, bigotry or hate… We will not stand quietly or idly on the sidelines of this issue” (as quoted in Sams, 2022, para. 8, Bizwomen). Not standing by “quietly or idly” means addressing not only headline-worthy issues around discrimination, but also the ways bias shows up in everyday relationships between buyers and suppliers and throughout organizations, such as acts of selective incivility.

Research indicates that organizations with cultures of respect (e.g., those low in incivility) and inclusion are more likely to attract and retain diverse members, and organizations have started to take action in this direction. One example is Transfix, a digital freight broker that creates spaces for diverse employees to be heard and supported, and that communicates the company’s purpose and mission of a diverse workforce (Christman, 2022, Supply & Demand Chain Executive). A second example is Johnson & Johnson, which strives for their leaders to take “purposeful and intentional action around being inclusive” to create spaces for people to learn from one another, foster a sense of safety and openness, and to increase opportunities for innovation across difference (Hope, 2022, 17:37, How strategy, accountability, and community impact drive inclusivity, U.S. Chamber of Commerce). Both of these examples show a commitment to fostering diversity and inclusion within their organizations, and these efforts can radiate out to positively impact relationships with buyers. For instance, Genentech prioritizes suppliers who make explicit commitments to diversity and inclusion (both within the organization and with respect to their own suppliers; Yeager, 2022, The importance and impact of supplier diversity programs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce). Internal programmatic efforts, in concert with external pro-diversity procurement practices, can foster increased diversity and inclusion.

Diversity efforts within supply chain management will not be sustainable without addressing the subtle acts of selective incivility that undermine inclusion as experienced by suppliers, buyers, and firm employees. We encourage further research and leader investment in this area to minimize selective incivility and increase diversity in supply chains.

For full references, please contact Dana Kabat-Farr.

About the authors

Dana Kabat-Farr is a professor in the Leadership and Organizations Department at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada. She can be reached at [email protected]

Iman Nosoohi is an assistant professor of Operations Management in the Faculty of Business Administration, at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He can be reached at [email protected]

Rémi Labelle-Deraspe is an assistant professor in the Human Resources Management Department at the University of Sherbrooke, in Quebec, Canada. He can be reached at [email protected]

SC
MR