I had a feeling that the wake of a contentious election would reinvigorate calls for “civility,” and I wasn’t disappointed. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called for "charity, respect, and civility," urging Americans to treat each other with kindness despite policy disagreements.
Additionally, 13 presidential centers, from Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush, issued a joint statement in September 2023 calling for civility and respect in political discourse, highlighting concerns over national polarization.
In the corporate sector, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) advised companies to foster civil workplaces during and after the election. They recommended steps such as educating employees on civility, establishing norms for mutual respect, and promoting a culture of civility to maintain productivity and harmony.
In light of all of that, let’s chat about civility, one of my least favorite constructs. The very first question we need to ask ourselves is what problem — precisely — are we attempting to solve with a focus on civility?
The reason I want orgs to focus there is to first, of course, ensure that we’ve selected the right remedy, and we can do that only once we’ve identified the root cause of an issue.
What is Civility?
Let’s operationalize civility, first, because my argument won’t make sense without it. Here’s where I am:
Civility is "behavior that recognizes the humanity of others and treats them with respect, courtesy, and consideration, even amid disagreement or conflict" (Clark, 2010). It involves adhering to social norms that promote mutual respect and harmonious coexistence in professional and communal settings (Carter, 1998). Forni’s (2002) Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct outlines civility as the application of respect and attentiveness to interpersonal relationships, forming the basis of effective societal engagement.
I started this discussion with acknowledgement of calls for civility within the context of national political discourse, which is a different — but related — matter for me. We don’t operate in organizations independent of politics: We’re sitting in our seats BECAUSE of politics, because of how services and resources are aligned. We cannot — materially or philosophically — divorce ourselves from political realities in organizations.
We can avoid discussing politics-as-sport in organizations, so that seems like an easy problem to fix…..if that’s the actual problem.
My concern, though, rests with organizations that want to solve problems through a construct like civility without creating the necessary theory of change to support it.
Here’s where my money is right now: I think orgs go very wrong with a focus on civility if the root cause of difficult interpersonal situations in organizations is actually organizational dysfunction.
That’s a word. Here’s what I mean: When we’re overloading people by continuing to strip away at the support that makes our work possible (adequate staffing, competitive pay, and an organizational ecosystem that promotes human health and well-being) and humans react negatively, the problem isn’t that they need to do better in their management of the poisoned waters created by organizational dysfunction.
We don’t need the fish to do better, in that case; we need the org to do better. Change the temperature or pH-balance of the water, and change how the fish react.
What I fear happens in the civility conversation is — as evidenced by the very definitions above — dynamics created at the org level end up placed on the backs of the line level employees with the expectation that improvements at the micro-level will then create the kind of ecosystem we want.
We need to know, then, what it is that causes the problem we hope to fix. We need to identify the problem and its root before signing on for civility as the solution.
Deep Rules
I think when you’re a person who believes that power is the most influential invisible variable in the social world, civility takes on a different flavor. What some people just uncritically accept as “being nice” or “politeness” is often a mask for much darker and more nefarious dynamics (perhaps you are familiar with Nice White Ladies by Jessie Daniels).
I’m thinking about deep rules, the things that Cannot be Discussed in an organization. Org specialist Jim Detert aptly frames deep rules as invisible power structures, describing them as “the unwritten understanding of what can’t be said, even in places that have surface-level psychological safety. This form of hidden power undermines well-being for most people and, in many cases, ultimately undermines even the leaders who seemingly benefit.”
What I think he means by stating that even leaders are harmed in this scenario is that leaders will never get the truth and will be unable to make the best decisions. They simply won’t see the entire landscape because — for whatever reason and whether intentionally or not — they’ve limited what people can safely say.
You already know how deep rules function if you’re in an org because you pick up the strands of power dynamics: You see and hear how leaders react to certain questions or to people who speak unpopular truths.
You see how people are penalized and punished in visible and invisible ways. Over time, it becomes clear to org members the discourse that IS allowable and that which must remain unspoken or unquestioned.
And as you already know, that which is allowable is determined by those with the most power.
Hence, my problem with “civility.” Who determines what is “uncivil” in an organization? I can tell you that it’s not the people without power. It’s the people with power who create the possible fields of action and set the boundaries for what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.
In an org where deep rules drive the discourse, even an innocuous question like, “Can I see the data on that?” can be a violation of civility and the deep rules of an organization when leaders don’t like to be questioned about their decisions.
Civility often enters the leadership conversation as an unquestioned virtue, a panacea for workplace discord and the cornerstone of “good” organizational culture. But when we scratch beneath the surface, civility reveals itself as less about mutual respect and more about maintaining power hierarchies. Leaders concerned with real equity and organizational transformation need to ask who benefits when we prioritize civility, and who is silenced under its banner.
Civility, as it is often framed in workplace training, centers on making others feel “comfortable.” But whose comfort? More often than not, civility training reinforces norms that protect those already in positions of power.
Marginalized employees — and here I’m referring to those with marginalized or unpopular opinions, too — are expected to frame their critiques politely, navigate conflict in ways that don’t ruffle feathers, and couch systemic critiques in palatable language. Meanwhile, the “uncivil” label disproportionately falls on those who dare to disrupt, question, point out hypocrisy, or challenge existing inequities, even in organizations that claim to want to disrupt those status quo power structures.
The Limits of Civility
Civility assumes an equal playing field where all participants have an equal voice and equal stakes. This assumption is false in any organization where power disparities exist. Marginalized employees may not feel safe speaking up, while dominant groups often interpret any critique of the status quo as an affront to their authority. Civility, then, becomes a means of tone-policing those who advocate for change.
Furthermore, civility training often overlooks structural issues like systemic bias, inequitable policies, or a culture of exclusion. Instead of addressing root causes, such training focuses on interpersonal dynamics, asking individuals to perform niceness rather than advocating for justice. It’s easier to tell employees to “listen actively” than to acknowledge and dismantle organizational practices that cause harm.
What Leaders Should Do Instead
If civility is a construct designed to preserve comfort for those in power, what should leaders prioritize instead? Here are a few alternatives:
Focus on Justice, Not Politeness
Shift the focus from how people deliver feedback to the content of their critiques. Create spaces where employees can speak honestly without fear of retaliation (we already know that innovation in orgs requires both psychological safety and intellectual honesty). Train leaders to recognize the difference between constructive conflict and genuine harm.1Teach Conflict Navigation, Not Avoidance
Civility often equates to avoiding conflict, but productive conflict is necessary for growth. Provide training that helps teams navigate difficult conversations while addressing power dynamics. Teach leaders to see conflict as an opportunity for transformation, not a threat to authority.Prioritize Equity in Organizational Culture
Move beyond surface-level civility and commit to equity at every level of the organization. This shift includes equitable hiring practices, fair policies, and structures that ensure marginalized voices are heard and valued.Center Impact Over Intent
Civility often gives dominant groups the benefit of the doubt by focusing on intent rather than impact. Shift the conversation to how actions and words affect others, regardless of intent. Leaders should learn to sit with discomfort and acknowledge harm, even when it wasn’t deliberate.One of the most dangerous situations in leadership is when leaders believe that they are “on the right side” and that any dissent in their direction is cause to react negatively instead of sitting with the critique. It’s maddening, especially in academic environments where parsing through evidence to come to the best decision is part of what we do, part of who we are.
Model Vulnerability and Accountability
Leadership requires more than mandating behavior from others. Leaders must model the behaviors they expect, including admitting mistakes, being open to critique, and holding themselves accountable for fostering an inclusive culture. One of my favorite approaches as a leader is to ask people to tell me why I’m wrong. Inviting dissent is one great way to build both psychological safety and intellectual honesty.
Beyond Civility: A Call to Action
Civility, as commonly practiced, asks marginalized people or speakers of unpopular truths to soften their voices and prioritize the comfort of those in power. True leadership requires more than an insistence on politeness; it demands a commitment to justice, accountability, and transformation. As leaders, we must shift the conversation away from civility and toward creating equitable systems where all voices are valued—not just those that speak softly or those that align with the notions of leaders.
Let’s stop training for civility and start training for courage, accountability, and equity. Only then can we build organizations where everyone has the freedom to thrive.
Friends, I’m more convinced than ever that leaders in the middle of the organization need some additional support, so I’m going to roll out a self-paced course in January, and it’ll require a fee simply because it’ll be highly scandalous, and I’m not here for inviting the internet trolls.
Specifically, this experience will be for the people who know that something ain’t right, that somehow our org values aren’t quite aligning with the decisions of the org. The course will be about Leading Humanely in Inhumane Contexts, and we’ll address what that means in the big picture and within the org.
Leaders need strategies for ensuring we maintain and promote humanity in the org, and mid-level leaders, especially, are in a unique position to create strong, resilient teams. Doing so does require the adoption of new tools and the rejection of some “standard” tools, and 2025 is the right time for us to engage in this conversation. Look for more early next year.
I need to add a note here that refers back to a previous episode where I argued that the future is neurodiverse. I want to speak on behalf of people who are not neurotypical for a moment in light of not only my own brain wiring but the wiring of those close to me both in and out of orgs. We need to do a much better job of separating delivery from content. When people are deeply committed to things like justice and transparency in communication, saying what we mean in very direct ways even despite power differentials, we collectively here in leadership need to do a better job of honoring that because those perspectives — unvarnished by the acknowledgement of power — are probably some of the most valuable and truth-forward pieces of data we can collect. If we do a better job of cultivating and rewarding intellectual honesty and create an environment of psychological safety, we’ll find ourselves in a better position for understanding the organizational landscape both within the org and outside of it.
Share this post