Fire Service Culture RW

FIRE SERVICE CULTURE: THE INFLUENCE OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOUR

ON COHESION AND RETENTION

by

Rachel L. Whitney

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science with

Honours in Psychology

Acadia University

March, 2012

© Copyright by Rachel L. Whitney, 2012

ii

This thesis by Rachel L. Whitney

is accepted in its present form by the

Department of Psychology

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

________________________________ ______________ Dr. Michael P. Leiter Date

Approved on behalf of the Head of the Department

________________________________ ______________

Dr. Peter McLeod Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

________________________________ _____________ Sonia Hewitt Date

iii

I, RACHEL L. WHITNEY, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

__________________________________ Signature of Author

___________________________________ Date

iv

Acknowledgements

I owe my deepest gratitude to everyone who made the completion of this thesis

possible. This thesis would not be possible without the guidance of my supervisor, Dr.

Michael P. Leiter, and my second reader, Dr. Lisa Price. I would also like to thank Dr.

Peter McLeod and the psychology department for providing me with the opportunity to

undertake this amazing learning experience.

I am incredibly thankful for the continuous support I received from Lisa, Frank,

Audrey, Erika, Patricia, and Mike at the Centre for Organizational Research and

Development. Their knowledge, experience, and great sense of humor helped me through

each step of the journey to thesis completion.

I am exceptionally grateful for the enthusiasm and encouragement I received from

all the firefighters involved in this study. In particular, my family at the Wolfville Fire

Department provided inspiration, advice, and support in so many ways.

Above all, I thank my boyfriend Todd for his patience, personal support, and

reassurance throughout this process. He provided valuable advice, was a travel

companion to some of the more distant departments I surveyed, showed interest in my

progress, and encouraged me to persevere. I also extend this gratitude to my mom, dad,

and sister Ashley, for all of your support.

v

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii

Fire Service Culture: The Influence of Interpersonal Behaviour on Cohesion and

Retention ............................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction to the Fire Service ...................................................................................... 2

Fire Service Culture ........................................................................................................ 3

Incivility .......................................................................................................................... 5

Workgroup Cohesion ...................................................................................................... 7

Impact of a Negative Workplace Culture ....................................................................... 8

Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 9

Method .............................................................................................................................. 11

Participants .................................................................................................................... 11

Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 11

Measures ....................................................................................................................... 12

Results ............................................................................................................................... 14

Table 1 .......................................................................................................................... 15

Table 2 .......................................................................................................................... 16

Table 3 .......................................................................................................................... 17

Table 4 .......................................................................................................................... 17

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 18

Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................. 19

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 20

vi

References ......................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 27

Fire Service Study Information Email .............................................................................. 27

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 29

Research Consent Form .................................................................................................... 29

Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix D ....................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix E ....................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix F........................................................................................................................ 36

Appendix G ....................................................................................................................... 37

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables. .............................. 15

Table 2. Contribution of civility and incivility in predicting turnover intention. ......... 16

Table 3. Contribution of each rudeness rationale in predicting workplace incivility. .. 17

Table 4. Significance of included and excluded varibles on workgroup cohesion. ...... 17

viii

Abstract

Growing turnover rates are an identified issue in the volunteer fire service, yet very few

studies have examined potential explanations for this phenomenon. Gray literature has

proposed a potential relationship between the unique culture of the fire service and

retention outcomes, however no such relationships have been empirically evaluated. This

study used a series of regressions to investigate whether rates of workplace civility and

incivility could predict workgroup cohesion and turnover intention. Three rationales for

uncivil behaviour were also investigated as potential mechanisms for the perpetuation of

a culture of incivility. Results supported each prediction with some limitations. The

quality of workgroup interactions influenced cohesion and turnover intention,

demonstrating the importance of promoting a respectful culture in improving retention.

Fire Service Culture

1

Fire Service Culture: The Influence of Interpersonal Behaviour on Cohesion and

Retention

The pager can go off at any time of day, the details of the emergency typically

unknown until the truck closes in on the scene. Amidst the adrenaline-fueled rush,

firefighters revert to their highest level of training and put their own lives in each other’s

hands. Their safety, and that of the public, relies on how well they can work as a team.

For most, the term “firefighter” invokes the image of fearless entry into a fire-

engulfed structure, even though only 1-5% of a firefighter’s duty time is spent on fire

suppression (Kales, Soteriades, Christophi, & Christiani, 2007). Alarms can include

anything from a multiple fatality accident to animal rescue. Contrary to public perception,

the majority of fire service activity occurs at the fire station and in other non-emergency

duties (Kales et al., 2007). Annual surveys conducted by the National Fire Protection

Association (as cited in Kales et al., 2007) indicate that approximately 65% of a

firefighter’s duty time is spent on non-emergencies, including time at the station. Station

duties can include cooking, cleaning, equipment maintenance, training, fire prevention

initiatives, fundraising, and downtime.

Despite the fact that firefighters spend most of their time engaging in everyday

work and social interactions with one another, existing literature on the fire service

focuses on exposure to critical incidents (Beaton & Murphy, 1993; Brough, 2004). In

addition to traumatic stressors, firefighters also experience a multitude of organizational

stressors that can also result in negative work and health-related consequences (Beaton &

Murphy, 1993; Brough, 2004). Brough (2004) found that organizational stressors were

far more predictive of job satisfaction than traumatic stressors in emergency service


2

workers. Although not measured in that study, the influence of organizational culture on

organizational stressors was proposed. Qualitative studies of firefighters have

inadvertently identified the organizational culture as a detrimental component of the

profession, but no quantitative measures have been used to investigate culture and the

impact it has on members of the fire service (Brough, 2004; Kitt, 2009).

Introduction to the Fire Service

Although the job title implies putting out fires, the duties of a firefighter extend

far beyond fire suppression. Depending on the needs of a particular area, firefighter duties

can also include emergency medical response, search and rescue, ice and water rescue,

high and low angle ropes rescue, vehicle extrication, hazardous materials response, and

aid in natural disasters. Firefighters also have additional roles in the community,

providing service to special events and public safety education. The cornucopia of

services firefighters provide can be based out of career, volunteer, or composite

departments.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2009 National Fire Experience

Survey found that 71% of firefighters in the United States were volunteers (Karter Jr. &

Stein, 2010). Compared to the US, Canada has a higher percentage of primarily volunteer

departments when compared by community size (Karter Jr. & Stein, 2010). Annual

national savings from the U.S. volunteer fire service is 37.2 billion dollars, which is an

average of approximately 45,000 dollars saved from each volunteer’s service (U.S. Fire

Administration [USFA], 2007). Most communities in Canada rely on the services of

volunteers for emergency protection and prevention, therefore adequate retention of

firefighters is paramount to the fulfillment of such essential community duties.


3


“I’ve always said, even now, the toughest part of being a firefighter is the culture.” (Kitt,

2009, p. 199).

Firefighting is a high-risk profession with a hierarchical membership structure,

making the fire service similar to police and military organizations (Archer, 1999; Kitt,

2009). Such paramilitary organizations are typically male-dominated workplaces with a

strong sense of tradition and secrecy (Archer, 1999; Thurnell-Read & Parker, 2008).

Firefighters enter the service as a probationary member and are not considered to

be a full member until they have served a designated amount of time. The probationary

period is when “probies” or “rookies” learn the customs of their department, become

familiar with the equipment, and strive to gain social acceptance from their fellow team

members. Keeping with tradition and passing on what they experienced, veteran

firefighters will “test” probationary members to see if they will comply with the culture

before they are granted social acceptance (Kitt, 2009). Mistreatment towards new

members has been cited as a source of turnover in the fire service (USFA, 2007).

Accounts of behaviour towards new recruits range anywhere from lighthearted

teasing to harassment to targeted deliberate attempts to drive a new member out of the

service (Kitt, 2009). A study on fire departments in the UK, US, and Ireland revealed that

verbal and even physical abuse of members, especially in the probationary stage, is an

accepted cultural norm of the fire service (Archer, 1999). Such abuse is rationalized as

horseplay used to build character and team cohesiveness. Relatively mild examples of

differential treatment towards probationary members include forced assignment to duties

such as cooking for senior members, scrubbing the toilet, and retrieving takeout from


4

multiple establishments for the rest of the crew (Kitt, 2009). Some severe forms of

mistreatment have resulted in lawsuits, including a hazing ritual of one department where

a female was forced by male members to shave her pubic hair (Murphy & Murphy, 2010).

More recently, a video posted online showed Macon-Bibb county firefighters hazing

rookies through an acted out armed hostage prank (Willing, 2011). Such publicized

instances of workplace harassment can destroy the community’s support and confidence

in their department.

Mistreatment in the fire service is not isolated towards probationary members; it

is something that can extend throughout a firefighter’s entire career. Most reported cases

are those involving sexual harassment and discrimination. The public is aware of such

cases only because they made it to trial, however there are presumably many more

incidents that are resolved through confidential settlements and others that are never

reported (Murphy & Murphy, 2010).

Victims of incivility and harassment may not report their experience or series of

experiences for an assortment of reasons. A survey of female volunteer firefighters in

South Australia found that reasons for not making official complaints about harassment

often included fear of criticism from others, believing the accusation would not be taken

seriously, believing that nothing would be done, or fear of retaliation from the perpetrator

(McLennan & Birch, 2006). Members may believe that their experience is not serious

enough to report, and within that culture some forms of interpersonal mistreatment may

seem trivial in a social environment where such occurrences are so widespread.

The distinctive characteristics of firefighting, combined with the extensive

amount of time firefighters spend together at the station and in trainings, allow a unique


5

workplace culture to flourish. Fire service culture has historically been super

masculinized and built around a “tough guy” image (Kitt, 2009). Attributes associated

with masculine ideals include physical and emotional strength, aggression, courage, and

independence (Thurnell-Read & Parker, 2008). Rookie members exposed to hazing or

pranks during their probationary period learn that this is a cultural norm that they must

experience to gain social acceptance from the group. Such behaviour is then perpetuated

as a norm to the “firefighter experience”.

The incidence of workplace aggression increases with the number of hours spent

at work (Harvey & Keashly, 2003). Career firefighters typically work on 12 or 24 hour

shifts with the same crew, and involvement in volunteer firefighting typically results in a

new social base for those involved in rural communities. Such frequent and intimate

contact facilitates the continuity of a strong organizational culture and the desire from

each member to become an accepted part of it.

Incivility

“I think it’s tradition in the fire brigade that what we now class as bullying has always

been teasing and it has been stuff which everybody is supposed to put up with.” (Archer,

1999, p. 98).

An important component to the culture of any organization is the level of civility

and incivility present in member relationships. Workplace incivility is a social interaction

characterized by disrespect and lack of consideration for others in a workgroup

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Incivility is differentiated from other forms of deviant

behaviour in the equivocal intent of the instigator to inflict harm on another individual.

Examples of such behaviour include but are not exclusive to: exclusion from group


6

activities, ignoring ideas, gossip, sarcasm, patronizing others, and aggressive

communication (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley,

2008; Martin & Hine, 2005). The inadvertent disrespect towards a colleague can initiate

the perpetuation of uncivil behaviour within the workgroup (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;

Baron & Neuman, 1996). When unaddressed, incivility can escalate into intentionally

harmful behaviour with increasing levels of deviance.

Women that experience workplace incivility are also likely to experience gender

harassment and sexualized harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lopez, Hodson, &

Roscigno, 2009). Power and dominance appear to be an influential factor in the

occurrence of workplace sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lopez et al., 2009).

This is very applicable to the fire service, which is a power-based hierarchy that is male-

dominated (Archer, 1999). The physical nature of a masculine work culture, such as that

present in the fire service, is shown to serve as a foundation for workplace incivility and

sexual harassment (Lopez et al., 2009).

Incivility can also occur between senior members and new recruits (Kitt, 2009;

Lopez et al., 2009). As with the occurrence of gendered harassment towards new female

recruits, male recruits can also experience harassment if existing members feel defensive

over the potential loss of a masculine job identity. The severity of mistreatment increases

when job security is an issue (Lopez et al., 2009), which can be a legitimate fear for older

members.

A culture of incivility can be perpetuated in the workplace by the attitudes

individuals hold about such interpersonal behaviour. If individuals in the workgroup

perceive uncivil behaviour as an acceptable way to treat their colleagues, such behaviour


7

becomes a norm in that environment. An individual can use three rationales as

“justification” when they have behaved rudely to a colleague: pressure, sensitivity, and

toughness (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Oore, 2011). The pressure rationale is used when

the individual feels that snapping at coworkers is acceptable during stressful situations.

Sensitivity is the belief that colleagues are just too sensitive and overreacting to what they

say. The toughness rationale is used as justification when the individual believes that he

or she has to be harsh to others in their workgroup (Leiter et al., 2011). These rationales

are especially applicable to the fire service, where high-pressure situations can be

encountered daily and where a culture of masculine toughness prevails (Archer, 1999). A

workplace culture will encourage incivility by accepting these rationales as legitimate

reasons for being rude or cruel towards others.

Workgroup Cohesion

Workgroup cohesion is defined as “the tendency for a group to stick together and

remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives” (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk,

2009, p. 174). This also includes commonalities in attitude, behaviour, and abilities

among members of a workgroup (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990). Cohesion is especially

important in the fire service, where firefighters are required to work as a team in

potentially stressful and life threatening situations (Varvel et al., 2007). High levels of

workgroup cohesion are associated with greater team satisfaction and intention to stay

with that team (Tekleab et al., 2009).

Fire departments strive for a high level of group cohesion among members, yet

several factors pertaining to the structure of a department often disrupt the level of

cohesion that could otherwise be achieved. In composite departments, career and


8

volunteer members dispute over which group is more experienced, competent, or

physically fit (USFA, 2007). Attitudes often vary between new and old members. Given

the hierarchal power-based structure of the fire service, power struggles can occur

between ranking officers, which can then disrupt those they manage.

Cliques are likely to form in an environment where members with different

backgrounds spend a great amount of time together. This is problematic in the fire service,

where teamwork and time together can establish cliques rather than togetherness.

Members that are new to the fire service or even to a new station often note cliques as a

barrier to feeling like an accepted part of the group (Kitt, 2009; USFA, 2007). Barriers

created by cliques are often seen as greater for members that are female and/or a minority

to the traditionally white male group. The formation of cliques and the negative impact it

has on the overall sense of team cohesiveness is incompatible with retention of members

in the fire service.

Impact of a Negative Workplace Culture

“They would set up little tests to see if he would rat out the culture and see how far they

could push him…what his tolerance was. He quit within six months and the crew were

just so proud of themselves because they drove him off the job.” (Kitt, 2009, p. 207).

A study investigating motives for turnover found that five out of the seven

reasons given for leaving the fire service relate to an adverse organizational culture.

These reasons included: conflicts in organization, organizational leadership created

adverse atmosphere, attitude of existing personnel to newcomers, criticism received from

officers/older members, and lack of camaraderie (USFA, 2007). The other two reasons

for leaving the service are related to the time commitment of being a volunteer firefighter.


9

The extensive amount of time spent on training and responding to calls is an inherent part

of the job and cannot be changed. What can be changed, however, is the social climate of

the organization. A civil and inviting work environment increases job satisfaction and

reduces turnover intention of members.

A study investigating differences in commitment between career and volunteer

firefighters found that volunteer firefighters had a significantly higher level of

commitment to their work group and their organization (Lee & Olshfski, 2002). Greater

commitment to work group and to the organization was related to higher levels of extra-

role behaviour in volunteers. Desire to remain with the organization was significantly

related to the level of commitment to the work group. Commitment is associated with

turnover; so to increase retention in volunteers, the organization they belong to and the

group they work with should be one that fosters commitment (Lee & Olshfski, 2002).

Organizational commitment has also shown a strong association in predicting employee

turnover in other professions, such as nursing (Wagner, 2007).

Hypotheses

The impact of workplace incivility has been extensively studied in healthcare

literature, however what is known about incivility in the fire service is based on

anecdotes from qualitative studies and government reports on firefighting. A culture of

incivility appears to exist in the fire service, and drawing from outcomes in healthcare

studies, it can be expected that an uncivil culture will increase turnover intent.

H1: Civility and incivility will each make a unique contribution to predicting turnover

intention. Incivility will be positively correlated with turnover intention while civility will

be negatively correlated with turnover intention.


10

Characteristics of fire service culture include a power-driven structure, tradition,

and a male-dominated workplace. Behaviours in this environment are similar to those of

other primarily male workforces, including emphasis on physicality, use of humor

(especially sexually-driven humor), and the desire to preserve a masculine culture. It can

therefore be predicted that reasons for behaving in an uncivil manner will relate to the

pervasiveness of such behaviours within that organizational setting. If the behaviour is

something everyone else does, individuals will be more inclined to act that way too.

H2: Rationales for uncivil behaviour will positively correlate with the experience of

incivility in the fire service. Each of the three rationales for uncivil behaviour will make a

unique contribution to predicting incivility.

The quality of interpersonal interactions will likely influence the level of

perceived cohesiveness among members in a workgroup. Individuals that are disrespected

or excluded by members of their workgroup will not feel like they are a part of that team.

When someone is socially isolated, they are likely to withdraw from that group.

H3: Civility and incivility will each make a unique contribution to predicting workgroup

cohesion. Incivility will be negatively correlated with workgroup cohesion, while civility

will be positively correlated with workgroup cohesion.

A gap in literature exists regarding culture in the fire service. The proposed

hypotheses have important implications on firefighter retention in the fire service. Given

the retention problem that exists primarily in volunteer fire departments, it is imperative

that the speculated culture of incivility in the fire service is investigated.


11

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from volunteer and composite fire departments in the

Annapolis Valley and South Shore of Nova Scotia. Volunteer departments include those

in which the membership is unpaid or paid-on-call. Career departments have membership

that is paid and assigned to shifts. Composite departments have membership that consists

of both career and volunteer firefighters. Seven different departments participated in this

study in addition to the Kings County Fire School, which trains firefighters from nearly

every department in the county. This resulted in the representation of 10 different

departments. Response rates ranged from 65-100% for each department, with a total of

199 surveys returned from the 213 distributed. Four surveys were excluded from the

analysis because they were incomplete.

The majority of respondents were male (87%), and 32% were a ranking officer.

There was a wide range in participant age (M = 37.68, SD = 13.23) and years of service

to their department (M = 10.85, SD = 11.68).

Procedure

Emails (Appendix A) were sent to the chiefs of fire departments in the Annapolis

Valley and South Shore of Nova Scotia inquiring about their interest to participate in a

study about fire service culture. The email provided basic information about

confidentiality, voluntary participation, an overview of the survey, and stated that a

profile of averaged results would be provided to the department if at least 10 firefighters

completed the survey. Profiles would only be provided if at least 10 members participated

to ensure the confidentiality of those that did complete a survey. The profile includes


12

average results for that department compared to the average results of all other

participating departments. Every department that was contacted agreed to participate in

the study. The Acadia University Research Ethics Board approved of this study prior to

the collection of any data.

Surveys were administered to department members during a training session,

meeting, or course. Consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed, explained, and

collected from participants before surveys were distributed. Surveys took approximately

15-20 minutes to complete and were collected by the researcher after completion. The

researcher provided a verbal debriefing of the study, and reminded participants that they

can use the contact information provided on the consent form if they have any questions

or concerns about the study. Surveys were sealed in provided envelopes by the participant

and were opened and scanned at the Centre for Organizational Research and

Development (COR&D) at Acadia University.

Measures

The level of workplace civility was assessed using the civility scale (Appendix C)

created for the CREW intervention program (Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, &

Belton, 2009). This highly reliable scale (α = 0.93) includes eight items that assess

various components to workplace civility, including: respect (“people treat each other

with respect in my work group”), cooperation, conflict resolution, coworker personal

interest, coworker reliability, antidiscrimination, value differences (“differences among

individuals are respected and valued in my work group”), and supervisor diversity

acceptance (Osatuke et al., 2009). These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale

with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.


13

General incivility was assessed using the widely used Workplace Incivility Scale

(Cortina et al., 2001). This scale asks participants to identify the frequency of seven

provided situations in which a supervisor or coworker behaved uncivilly towards them

during the past year (Appendix D). Examples include “made insulting or disrespectful

remarks to you”, and “physically threatened or intimidated you”. Frequency ratings are

on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = many times. Cortina et al.

(2001) demonstrated the internal consistency of this measure (α = 0.89). Later studies

confirmed the content and discriminant validity of the Workplace Incivility Scale (Lim,

Cortina, & Magley, 2008).

Workgroup cohesion was assessed using items derived from the “workgroup

cohesion” subcategory (Appendix E) of the Defense Equal Opportunity Organizational

Climate Survey (DEOCS). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree

or disagree with statements on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 =

strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include “my work group works

well together as a team” and “members of my work group trust each other.” A high

overall score indicates a high level of workgroup cohesion. Alpha coefficient estimates

based off individual level data (α = 0.92) and unit data (α = 0.97) demonstrate the high

reliability of this measure (Walsh, Matthews, Tuller, Parks, & McDonald, 2010).

Retention outcome was measured using a scale of turnover intentions (Appendix

F). Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham’s (1999) turnover intention scale includes four items

rated on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree. Items include “I am thinking about leaving this organization” and “I don’t


14

plan to be in this organization much longer.” Kelloway et al. (1999) obtained high

internal consistency in both portions of their study (Time 1 α = 0.92, Time 2 α = 0.93).

Rudeness rationales (Appendix G) were assessed using the recently developed

Rudeness Rationales Scale (Leiter et al., 2011). This measure asks participants to rate

how often they experience certain work related feelings on a seven point Likert scale with

responses ranging from 0 = never to 6 = daily. These feelings are categorized into three

types of rationalizations: pressure (e.g. “when time is tight I tend to get abrupt with

people”), sensitivity (e.g. “I work with people whose feelings are easily hurt”), and

toughness (e.g. “a tough response is necessary when people try to manipulate me”).

Initial evaluation of this measure has demonstrated high internal reliability (α = 0.83).

Results

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS on a password protected

laptop at COR&D. The first hypothesis was analyzed using a stepwise regression with

civility and incivility as predictor variables and turnover intention as the dependent

variable. Hypothesis 2 investigated the relationship of each rudeness rationale in a

stepwise regression with incivility as the dependent variable. The third hypothesis was

also analyzed using a stepwise regression, with civility and incivility as predictor

variables, and workgroup cohesion as the dependent variable. Given the exploratory

nature of this study, stepwise regressions were used to determine the unique contributions

of each predictor. Stepwise regressions were used so the partial correlations could be

obtained from variables that were excluded from the analysis. A stepwise regression

enters variables with the highest correlation to the dependent variable first, followed by

variables with the next highest correlation in each subsequent step.


15

Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for each variable. The

Cronbach alpha for each variable is listed along the main diagonal. Internal consistencies

were high for measures of civility, incivility, workgroup cohesion, and turnover intention

(Table 1). Reliability for the three Rudeness Rationales subscales (Table 1) was lower

than the initial evaluation of this measure (Leiter et al., in review). Although age and

years of service were highly correlated with each other, r(195)=.57, p<.001, neither

variable had a significant correlation with any of the dependent variables. Since age and

years of service were not correlated with the dependent variables, they were not entered

into the regression analyses.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Civility 3.88 0.64 .88

2. Incivility 1.03 0.87 -.51** .91

3. Pressure 1.88 0.96 -.11 .34** .55

4. Sensitivity 1.93 1.03 -.18** .38** .33** .53

5. Toughness 2.09 1.18 -.05 .32** .24** .48** .69

6. Workgroup Cohesion 4.21 0.66 .72** -.44** -.15* -.11 -.07 .81

7. Turnover Intention 1.88 0.91 -.46** .43** .20* .21** .05 -.40** .89

N=195, *p<.05, ** p<.01, Cronbach alpha on main diagonal.

As hypothesized, incivility was positively correlated with turnover intention,

r(195)=.43, p<.001, and civility was negatively correlated with turnover intention,

r(195)=-.46, p<.001. A stepwise regression tested whether workplace incivility and

workplace civility would make a unique contribution to predicting turnover intention.


16

Civility was entered on the first step of the regression because it had a stronger

correlation with turnover intention than incivility did. Both civility and incivility were

entered on the second step of the regression, and the unique contribution of each variable

in predicting turnover intention was analyzed. The regression found that incivility made a

significant unique contribution beyond the influence of civility alone (Table 2) by

increasing R2 by .052 (F(1,191)=13.42, p<.001), resulting in an adjusted R2 = .256

(F(2,189)=33.88, p<.001).

Table 2

Unique contribution of civility and incivility in predicting turnover intention.

Predictor β t Significance

Civility -.33 -4.48 <.001

Incivility .27 3.66 <.001

N=195

As expected, the pressure, sensitivity, and toughness rationales were positively

correlated with workplace incivility (Table 1). Sensitivity was entered into the stepwise

regression first because it was the rationale that was most highly correlated with

workplace incivility. The second step of the regression included both sensitivity and

pressure, which was the variable with the next highest correlation to turnover intention.

All three variables were included on the last step of the regression. The regression

analysis found that each rationale uniquely contributed to the prediction of incivility

(Table 3) with an adjusted R2 = .204 (F(3,192)=17.63, p<.001), thus confirming the second

hypothesis.


17

Table 3

Contribution of each rudeness rationale in predicting workplace incivility.


Sensitivity .22 2.94 .004

Pressure .23 3.38 .001

Toughness .17 2.31 .022

N=195

As expected, incivility was negatively correlated with workgroup cohesion,

r(195)=-.44, p<.001, while civility was positively correlated with workgroup cohesion,

r(195)=.72, p<.001. Workgroup cohesion was negatively correlated to turnover intention,

r(195)=-.40, p<.001, as predicted in hypothesis three. Contrary to the third hypothesis,

incivility was not a unique predictor of workgroup cohesion (Table 4). Civility was the

only variable that uniquely contributed to the regression of workgroup cohesion R2 =.52

(F(1,194)=211.32, p<.001).

Table 4

Significance of included and excluded variables on workgroup cohesion.


Civility -.72 14.54 <.001

Excluded Partial

Incivility -.10 -1.67 .097 -.12

N=195


18

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of civility and incivility

on workgroup cohesion and turnover intention in members of the fire service. A

mechanism for the prediction of workplace incivility was proposed using the Rudeness

Rationales scale (Leiter et al., 2011). Fire service culture from an interpersonal

relationship perspective was explored to help fill the literature gap on retention issues in

the volunteer fire service.

Both civility and incivility were unique predictors of turnover intention, thus

supporting Hypothesis 1. Civility had a significant negative correlation with turnover

intention, meaning that higher levels of positive interpersonal interactions related to a

reduced likelihood to want to leave the organization. Incivility was positively correlated

with turnover intention, meaning that increased incidence of uncivil interactions with

coworkers related to an increased likelihood to plan on leaving the department. This is

consistent with previous literature on the relationship between incivility and

organizational withdrawal behaviour (Cortina et al., 2001).

The sensitivity, pressure, and toughness rationale each provided a unique

contribution to the prediction of workplace incivility, which supports the second

hypothesis. The positive correlation between each rationale and incivility indicates that

increased frequency in rationale usage relates to increased incidence of incivility in the

workgroup. This relationship is consistent with Leiter et al.’s (2011) preliminary

investigation on the use of these rationales in predicting workplace incivility.

Similar to the relationship with turnover intention, both civility and incivility were

significantly related to workgroup cohesion. Civility had a very strong positive


19

correlation, while incivility had a negative correlation with workgroup cohesion.

Contrary to the hypothesis, the stepwise regression revealed that only civility uniquely

predicted the level of workgroup cohesion. Positive social interactions with ones

workgroup, as measured by the civility scale, predicted higher levels of perceived

cohesiveness within ones workgroup. High levels of workgroup cohesion were related to

lower levels of turnover intention, which is consistent with previous studies making the

same comparison (Odom et al., 1990).

The results of this study, in conjunction with parallel research in different

organizational settings, demonstrate the importance of positive workplace relationships in

member retention. A workplace culture that promotes respect and cooperation among

team members will foster a welcoming environment that members would want to stay a

part of. Although the hypotheses were supported, there are some limitations in the

interpretation of results.

Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of this study is the method used to survey firefighters.

Administering the survey during a training or meeting yielded a remarkable response rate,

however such a sample has potential biases. It is possible that members who attend

meetings and trainings perceive their workgroup more positively than members that do

not attend meetings and trainings regularly. Since these were all volunteer departments,

attendance at every meeting or training is not mandatory. Previous research has identified

organizational withdrawal behaviour as a consequence of workplace incivility (Cortina et

al., 2001). If such a relationship applies to this sample, the overall level of incivility may


20

be higher than what was determined from firefighters that have not withdrawn from their

organization.

A related limitation is that only current firefighters were surveyed. Since

volunteers are not dependent on firefighting for income, they would presumably be more

likely to resign if they were dissatisfied with aspects of the job. Future research should

also include comparisons between volunteer and career firefighters on the dimensions of

civility, incivility, workgroup cohesion, and turnover intention. It would also be

informative to find a way to contact resigned firefighters to see if an adverse culture had a

role in their decision to resign.

Conclusions drawn in the second hypothesis also have some limitations. The

Cronbach alphas for each Rudeness Rationale subscale were low, indicating that those

items may not have reliably measured rationales for incivility in this sample. Preliminary

research using the Rudeness Rationale measure indicated high reliability in healthcare

settings (Leiter et al., under review), but such results were not replicated in this study.

Since the internal consistencies for each subscale were so low, it is questionable whether

the three rationales were accurately measured in this sample.

Conclusion

Results from this study indicate a strong predictive relationship between the

quality of interpersonal relationships and turnover intention in the fire service. Further

research needs to be conducted in this area, since this is one of the first to empirically

evaluate whether a culture of incivility is related to the retention issues observed in the

fire service. This promising area of research should be expanded to include career

firefighters in the future. Inclusion of variables that assess other aspects of organizational


21

culture will help provide a greater understanding of how turnover may be reduced in the

fire service.


22

References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility

in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.

Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military organisation.

International Journal of Manpower, 20(1), 94-105.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:

Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior,

22, 161-173.

Beaton, R. D., & Murphy, S. A. (1993). Sources of occupational stress among

firefighter/EMTs and firefighter/paramedics and correlations with job-related

outcomes. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 8(2), 140-149.

Brough, P. (2004). Comparing the influence of traumatic and organizational stressors on

the psychological health of police, fire, and ambulance officers. International

Journal of Stress Management, 11(3), 227-244.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the

workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,

64-80.

Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace:

Risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality,

31(8), 807-814.

Kales, S. N., Soteriades, E. S., Christophi, C. A., & Christiani, D. C. (2007). Emergency

duties and deaths from heart disease among firefighters in the United States. The

New England Journal of Medicine, 356(12), 1207-1215.


23

Karter, M. J., & Stein, G. P. (2010). U.S. fire department profile through 2009. Quincy,

MA: National Fire Protection Association. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=15&URL=Research.

Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction

of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 337-346.

Kessler, S. R., Spector, P. E., Change, C.-H., & Parr, A. D. (2008). Organizational

violence and aggression: Development of the three-factor Violence Climate

Survey. Work & Stress 22, 108-124.

Kitt, L. R. (2009). Breaking the silence: Insights into the impact of being a firefighter on

men’s mental health (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/15226

Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment,

incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes.

Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 302-311.

Lee, S.-H., & Olshfski, D. (2002). An examination of the variations in the nature of

employee commitment: The case of paid and volunteer firefighters. International

Review of Public Administration, 7(1), 29-38.

Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. (2011). Rudeness rationales:

Whatever were they thinking? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The

interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496.


24

Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility:

Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95

107.

Lopez, S. H., Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V. J. (2009). Power, status, and abuse at work:

General and sexual harassment compared. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 3-27.

Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil

workplace behavior questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

10(4), 477-490.

McLennan, J., & Birch, A. (2006). Survey of South Australian Country Fire Service

Women Volunteers (South Australian Country Fire Service Report No. 2006:1).

Retrieved from www.aemvf.org.au/site/_content/resource/00000109

docsource.pdf

Murphy, J. K., & Murphy, B. L. (2010, March). Legal and psychological effects of

workplace harassment. Fire Engineering 163(3). Retrieved from

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-163/issue

3/departments/Fire_Service_Court/legal-and-psychological-effects-of-workplace

harassment.html

Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment,

satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14(2),

157-169.

Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., & Belton, L. (2009). Civility,

Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization


25

development intervention at Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 45(3), 384-410.

Schat, A. C. H. (2004). In praise of intolerance: Investigating the effects of organizational

tolerance on the incidence and consequences of workplace aggression

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph, Ontario.

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team

conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group &

Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205.

Thurnell-Read, T., & Parker, A. (2008). Men, masculinities and firefighting:

Occupational identity, shop-floor culture and organizational change. Emotion,

Space and Society, 1, 127-134.

U.S. Fire Administration. (2007). Retention and recruitment for the volunteer emergency

services (USFA Publication No. FA-310). Retrieved from

www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa-310.pdf

Varvel, S. J., He, Y., Shannon, J. K., Tager, D., Bledman, R. A., Chaichanasakul, A., …

Mallinckrodt, B. (2007). Multidimensional, threshold effects of social support in

firefighters: Is more support invariably better? Journal of Counseling Psychology,

54(4), 458-465.

Wagner, C. M. (2007). Organizational commitment as a predictor variable in nursing

turnover research: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60, 235-247.

Walsh, B. M., Matthews, R. A., Tuller, M. D., Parks, K. M. & Mcdonald, D. P. (2010). A

multilevel model of the effects of equal opportunity climate on job satisfaction in

the military. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 191-207.


26

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational

change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization

Management, 25(2), 132-153.

Willing, L. (2011, October 17). Firehouse gunman prank: Would you have stopped it?

FireRecruit.com. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from

http://www.firerecruit.com/articles/1167517 Firehouse-gunman-prank-Would

you-have-stopped-it


27

Appendix A

Fire Service Study Information Email

Interested in contributing your knowledge and experience to an exciting study on

firefighting? Here’s your chance.

As a firefighter, I can fully appreciate the unique culture that exists in the fire

service. Research in other organizations has shown the significant influence culture has

on employee well-being and retention outcomes, however no such studies have been

conducted in the fire service. Given the high turnover rates in many volunteer and even

some career departments, it is crucial that we explore this dimension to the firefighting

experience. Firefighting is a profession unlike any other; therefore the distinct facets of

the culture we live must be explored to find ways of improving firefighter retention.

In order to conduct this research, we need a large number of firefighters to

complete a 15-minute survey about their everyday experiences and behaviours at the fire

hall. Ideally, this survey would be given during a training, meeting, or shift where most

members are present. I will be there to explain the study, what participation involves, and

answer any questions firefighters may have.

The survey data will be used as part of my honours thesis, in addition to a paper

intended for publication in a scientific journal and firefighting periodical. All published

information will not identify your members or department in any way.

If at least 10 firefighters in your department take part in this study, we can provide

you with a profile of how your department scored compared to the average of other

participating departments. This profile may benefit your department by providing you

with information on perceived levels of teamwork, climate of social relations, levels of


28

firefighter satisfaction, and whether there is any intent to leave. As with any form of

publication or profiling resulting from this study, data that may identify a member or

department will not be included.

If interested in including your department in this study, or if you have any

questions about this study, please contact Rachel Whitney ([email protected])

or my supervisor Dr. Michael P. Leiter at ([email protected]).

About Us:

Rachel L. Whitney is an undergraduate student at Acadia University and a Research

Assistant at the Centre for Organizational Research & Development (COR&D). She is

working towards a B.Sc. with honours in psychology and B.Sc. in biology. Combining

her interests in organizational psychology and firefighting, Rachel is currently writing her

honours thesis on culture in the fire service.

Dr. Michael P. Leiter, Ph.D. is the director of COR&D, former Vice President

Academic, and Professor of Psychology at Acadia University. A registered Psychologist,

he has been involved in organizational psychology for nearly twenty years. He has

conducted extensive research on burnout in human service organizations and has

contributed to extending the concept to other occupational sectors. He maintains active

collaborations with colleagues in Europe, the USA, and Canada with whom he has

published in journals, scholarly books, and the popular press.


29

Appendix B

Research Consent Form

Fire Service Culture Study

Researchers:

Rachel L. Whitney, Acadia University Dr. Michael P. Leiter, Acadia University

Honours Student Supervisor

[email protected] [email protected]

(902) 670-4212 (902) 585-1671

Purpose of Research

Research on firefighting has focused on the impact of exposure to traumatic incidents,

while ignoring the elements of fire department culture and how it can impact members.

Studies in other workplace settings have revealed the significant influence culture and

social interactions has on well-being and organizational outcomes. This project aims to

profile the behaviour of firefighters, and the impact such behaviour has on fire

departments and its members.

What Will the Research Involve?

If you chose to participate in this study, you will be given a survey that takes

approximately 15 minutes to complete. This survey will ask questions about basic

demographics, experiences you have had with team members, and how you feel about

your involvement in the fire service. The information you provide will remain

confidential. You must be 18 years or older to participate in this study.


30

Potential Harms

There are no anticipated harms associated with participation in this study. Some

participants may feel uncomfortable revealing personal information that could potentially

identify who they are. You will be asked to identify which fire department you are

currently a member of, however your individual responses will not be revealed to anyone

in your organization and your department will not be named in any publication. Please

note that only the researchers will have access to surveys. Information obtained from

surveys will only be reported in a non-identifiable manner to ensure confidentiality of all

participants and their departments.

Potential Benefits

This research provides no known direct benefits to you as a result of your participation. If

interested, a copy of the results can be sent to you when this study is completed.

How Will Privacy Be Protected?

After the allotted time, you will seal your survey in the provided envelope whether you

chose to complete it or not. Envelopes will only be opened at Acadia University and

survey results will be entered on a password-protected computer by one of the listed

researchers. Only the researchers will have access to this data. Surveys will be stored in a

locked file cabinet at Acadia University and will be destroyed upon completion of this

project. Individual responses will not be reported, and information that discloses your

identity or that of your department will not be published.


31

Publication

This research is being conducted with the intention of publication in a scientific journal in

addition to the student researcher’s honours thesis. You and your department will not be

identified in any way in any publication.

Participation

The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. If you chose to participate,

you can withdraw at any time without negative consequence. By consenting to participate,

you have not waived any rights to legal assistance if a research-related harm were to

occur.

Contacts for Study Questions or Problems

If you would like to contact the researchers regarding this study, feel free to call or email

either one of us through the contact info provided at the beginning of this form. For

questions regarding your rights as a participant or the conduct of this study, contact the

Acadia University Research Ethics Board at (902) 585-1498, or Dr. Stephen Maitzen,

REB Chair, at [email protected].

Participant Consent

I have read and the Consent Form and fully understand the nature of this research and

what my participation entails. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

Participant Name

(Print)________________________________________________________

Participant Signature____________________________________________

Date:____________________


32

If you’re interested in receiving the results of this study, please include your email, or any

other form of contact if you do not have email, in the space below.

Email:________________________________________________


33

Appendix C

Civility Scale (Osatuke et al., 2009)

Please indicate the degree of your agreement or

disagreement with each statement.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither A

gree nor D

isagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

People treat each other with respect in my

work group

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in

my work group

Disputes or conflicts are resolved fairly in my

work group

The people I work with take a personal interest

in me

The people I work with can be relied on when I

need help

This organization does not tolerate

discrimination

Differences among individuals are respected

and valued in my work group

Managers/Supervisors/Team leaders work well

with employees of different backgrounds in my

work group


34

Appendix D

Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001)

During the past year, while a member of

your department, have you been in a

situation where any of your superiors or

coworkers: Never

Rarely

Sometim

es

Often

Many Tim

es

Put you down or was condescending to you?

Paid little attention to your statement or

showed little interest in your opinion?

Made demeaning or derogatory remarks

about you?

Addressed you in unprofessional terms,

either publicly or privately?

Ignored or excluded you from professional

camaraderie?

Doubted your judgement on a matter over

which you have responsibility?

Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a

discussion of personal matters?


35

Appendix E

DEOCS: Workgroup Cohesion (Walsh et al., 2010)

Please indicate the degree of your agreement

or disagreement with each statement.

Totally Disagree

Moderately D

isagree

Neither A

gree nor D

isagree

Moderately A

gree

Totally Agree

My work group works well together as a

team.

Members of my work group pull together to

get the job done.

Members of my work group really care about

each other.

Members of my work group trust each other.


36

Appendix F

Turnover Intentions Scale (Kelloway et al., 1999)

Please indicate the degree of your

agreement or disagreement with each

statement.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither A

gree nor D

isagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

I am thinking about leaving this

organization.

I am planning to look for a new job.

I intend to ask people about new job

opportunities.

I don’t plan to be in this organization much

longer.


37

Appendix G

Rudeness Rationales (Leiter et al., 2011)

Please indicate how often, if ever,

you have experienced these work

related feelings. Never

Sporadically A

few tim

es a year or less

Now

and Then

Once a m

onth or less

Regularly

A few

times a m

onth

Often

Once a w

eek

Very O

ften A

few tim

es a week

Daily

When time is tight, I tend to get

abrupt with people

I am abrupt to others when I feel

stressed.

People take offense when they

misinterpret my actions.

I work with people whose feelings

are easily hurt.

Regardless of the pressure, I am

sensitive to the feelings of everyone

at work.

I am impatient with how easily other

people can take offense.

I have to stop others from taking

advantage of me.

It is important to respond firmly


38

when people are being annoying.

A tough response is necessary when

people try to manipulate me.

Fire Service Culture RW

Documents

Transcript of Fire Service Culture RW