The Effectiveness of the CREW Intervention in Reducing Workplace Incivility and Job Stress While Enhancing Organizational Commitment Among Academicians: A Quasi- Experimental Study

The Effectiveness of the CREW Intervention in Reducing Workplace Incivility and Job Stress While Enhancing Organizational Commitment Among Academicians: A Quasi- Experimental Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Effectiveness of the CREW Intervention in Reducing Workplace Incivility and Job Stress While Enhancing Organizational Commitment Among Academicians: A Quasi- Experimental Study Ekta jain, Charu Dhankar, Khushi jain This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Workplace incivility and stress have become increasingly prevalent in academic institutions, affecting faculty morale, commitment, and performance. This quasi-experimental study evaluated the effectiveness of the Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) intervention among academicians. A total of 104 faculty members from public universities were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 52) and a wait-list control group (n = 52). The CREW program was implemented over six months comprising 18 sessions (three sessions per month). Measures of workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment were administered at pre- and post-intervention phases. The intervention group showed significant improvements post-intervention in all three domains: decreased workplace incivility ( t = 6.55, p < .01, d = 0.92), reduced job stress ( t = 4.02, p < .01, d = 0.56), and enhanced organizational commitment ( t = 8.80, p < .01, d = 1.24). In contrast, participants in the control group experienced heightened levels of incivility and stress, alongside no notable enhancement in organizational commitment.. These findings underscore the utility of CREW as an evidence-based tool to foster psychological well-being and institutional engagement in academic settings. CREW workplace incivility job stress organizational commitment academicians quasi-experimental Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction In recent years, workplace incivility has emerged as a significant organizational challenge across a wide range of professions. It is commonly defined as low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm, which violates norms of mutual respect ( 1 ).This includes subtle forms of mistreatment such as rudeness, sarcasm, exclusion, and dismissiveness, which, although seemingly minor on the surface, can accumulate over time and have profound organizational consequences. A growing body of research indicates that repeated exposure to incivility contributes to emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and increased intentions to leave the organization ( 2 , 3 ). For instance, [NO_PRINTED_FORM] ( 4 )found a strong positive correlation between incivility and turnover intentions among hospital nurses, reinforcing the damaging effect of uncivil behaviours on employee retention. Similarly, ( 5 ) noted that incivility had been prominent in predicting withdrawal behaviours and demoralisation in Chinese universities, among both academic and non-academic employees, especially where transformational leadership was not practiced. The findings are critical in highlighting how the problem of workplace incivility is insidious and widespread and can negatively affect the psychological well-being and the organizational fit of employees in the various occupational settings. Current studies continue to highlight the increasing rates of incivility in all workplace areas, and, notably, some troubling trends are being observed in higher learning establishments. Although the study focuses on academic institutions, which are usually regarded as separate spaces of intellectual exchange on a scholarly or collegiate level, they also imbue the workplace business-like dynamics related to competitive pressures, hierarchical authority, and limited resources, factors that grow strained interpersonal dynamics and incivility( 6 ). Several studies document elevated bullying and incivility rates among faculty, with national surveys indicating that around 40–50% of academics have witnessed or experienced such behaviours—women, early-career academics, and minority groups being disproportionately affected. ( 7 , 8 )These behaviours not only degrade individual well-being but also impair teamwork, innovation, and teaching effectiveness, as evidenced in both nursing and physical therapy education settings where faculty-reported incivility has been linked to reduced job satisfaction and heightened psychological stress ( 9 ). One of the most pressing concerns arising from incivility is its relationship with occupational stress. Faculty members are frequently expected to balance teaching, research, administrative responsibilities, and service all under the scrutiny of performance metrics and funding constraints. Such complex demands, when compounded by a lack of respect and psychological safety, can significantly elevate stress levels. Chronic job stress, in turn, is associated with absenteeism, burnout, and withdrawal from organizational engagement ( 10 ). Furthermore, the cumulative impact of incivility and stress can undermine organizational commitment, reducing faculty members’ emotional attachment, identification with institutional values, and willingness to invest discretionary effort (Lee & Idris, 2024). Organizational commitment is a crucial factor in determining the overall effectiveness and sustainability of academic institutions. It reflects the psychological bond employees share with their organization, influencing their willingness to remain, perform, and contribute beyond formal job requirements. High levels of organizational commitment are associated with reduced turnover, improved job satisfaction, and greater organizational citizenship behaviors, all of which are essential for the growth and stability of universities. In academic settings, where the quality of teaching, research, and collegial collaboration depends heavily on faculty engagement, fostering commitment becomes even more significant. Strengthening organizational commitment not only enhances individual performance but also builds a positive institutional culture that supports long-term academic excellence. Despite growing awareness of these issues, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to address workplace incivility in academic settings remain limited. Most institutional responses have been reactive, focusing on conflict resolution or punitive measures, rather than proactively cultivating respectful, inclusive work cultures. One promising intervention that has gained traction in healthcare and public service sectors is the Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) program. Developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, CREW is a team-based initiative that aims to improve workplace climate by fostering respectful communication, trust, and collegial engagement through structured, facilitated sessions over several weeks ( 11 ). Empirical studies conducted in hospital systems, government agencies, and correctional facilities have shown that CREW can significantly enhance civility, reduce burnout, and increase organizational commitment ( 12 ). However, a critical gap remains: CREW has not yet been empirically implemented or evaluated in higher education settings. While experts have advocated for its adaptation in academia—given the structural similarities to healthcare organizations in terms of interdependence, autonomy, and workload pressures—published studies are yet to demonstrate its effectiveness with faculty populations. ( 13 ) noted the absence of CREW trials in university contexts and emphasized the need for controlled research to evaluate its applicability and impact in academic environments. More recently, ( 14 ) reiterated this call, stating that “civility-promoting interventions like CREW remain conspicuously absent in the higher education toolkit despite mounting evidence of incivility’s prevalence and consequences.” This study aims to fill this critical gap by conducting a quasi-experimental evaluation of the CREW intervention among academicians in Indian public universities. Grounded in social learning and organizational culture theories, CREW sessions are designed to model and reinforce positive workplace behaviours, gradually transforming interpersonal dynamics and climate norms. The present research examines whether participation in the CREW intervention leads to a reduction in perceived workplace incivility, decreased job stress, and improved organizational commitment among faculty members. Additionally, it investigates whether job stress acts as a mediating mechanism through which incivility impacts organizational commitment. 2. Methodology 2.1 Research Question Does participation in the CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program lead to a significant reduction in workplace incivility, a decrease in job stress, and an increase in organizational commitment among academicians? 2.2 Research Objectives To examine the effect of the CREW program on workplace incivility among academicians. To assess the effect of the CREW program on job stress among academicians. To evaluate the effect of the CREW program on organizational commitment among academicians. To examine the variations in workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment in the control group without CREW intervention. 2.3 Hypotheses H1: Academicians in the experimental group will show a significant reduction in workplace incivility after participating in the CREW program compared to their pre-intervention scores. H2: Academicians in the experimental group will report a significant decrease in job stress following the CREW intervention compared to pre-intervention levels. H3: Academicians in the experimental group will exhibit a significant increase in organizational commitment after the CREW program compared to pre-intervention levels. The control group will show increased workplace incivility and job stress, with no significant improvement in organizational commitment. 2.4 Sample The study included 104 academician (46 males and 54 females) recruited through convenience sampling from three public universities located in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Participants were full-time faculty members from a variety of academic disciplines including science, commerce, humanities, education, and management. Out of the total sample, 52 participants were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the wait-list control group. 2.5 Tools Used Organizational commitment : - Developed by “Upinder Dhar, Prashant Mishra and D.K Srivastava in the year 2002”. It consists of 8 items. The reliability of the test is0.60.(Dhar et al., 2002) Uncivil Workplace behaviour Questionnaire : - Developed by “Martin and Hine in the year 2005”. It consists of 20 items. It is a 5-point Likert scale. The reliability of thetest is 0.80. (Martin & Hine, 2005) CREW Intervention :- The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program was implemented over a period of six months, comprising 18 sessions (three sessions per month) conducted within the academic setting. Each session lasted approximately 30 minutes and was scheduled during regular working hours to ensure accessibility. The sessions were facilitated directly by the researcher, who followed the standardized CREW guidelines to ensure consistency in delivery. The program was voluntary. Sessions were announced at department meetings, and through institutional email, and facilitators requested those academic staff members on campus to attend. Every single session incorporated at least some of the CREW toolkit, (e.g., How would we show one another respect here?) as well as specifically institutional materials that helped to make the sessions more relevant to the academicians (e.g. What constitutes a collaborative faculty environment? or What motivates me teach this semester?) Also, customized activity sheets were provided to reflect certain issues arising in academic departments (e.g. How can we foster a more inclusive academic culture? and What is your ideal regarding departmental meetings?). The participants were invited to discuss their thoughts and experiences in a dialogic form with a special attention to intimate collegiality and professional civility. The purpose of this approach was to encourage free discussions concerning interpersonal respect and organizational culture at academic forums. The research team assisted in scheduling sessions and kept records of participant attendance and professional role in a systematic manner at each session. 2.6 Procedure of the study A quasi-experimental design was employed with 104 faculty members randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 52) and a wait-list control group (n = 52). All participants completed pre-test measures of workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. The intervention group then underwent the six-week CREW program, consisting of weekly sessions on civility, respect, and engagement, while the control group continued with regular activities. Following the intervention, both groups completed post-test measures, and results were compared to assess effectiveness. 3. Results Table 1 Pre-Intervention Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment Group 1 Experimental (Pre) Control (Pre) t p Cohen’s d Variable Mean S.D Mean S.D Workplace incivility 65.8 7.79 66.5 9.13 0.41 0.68 0.08 Job stress 151.6 8.00 149.1 5.94 1.77 0.07 0.35 Organizational commitment 19.5 2.58 19.2 2.50 0.62 0.53 0.12 Pre-Intervention Comparison of Groups Pre-Intervention Comparison for experimental group The pre-intervention comparison between the experimental and control groups showed no significant differences across workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment, indicating that the groups were comparable at baseline. The experimental group reported a mean workplace incivility score of 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) and the control group 66.5 (S.D. = 9.13), with a t-value of 0.41 (p = 0.68) and a very small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.08). For job stress, the experimental group had a mean of 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) compared to 149.1 (S.D. = 5.94) in the control group, t = 1.77, p = 0.07, Cohen’s d = 0.35, indicating a small difference. Organizational commitment scores were also similar, with means of 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) and 19.2 (S.D. = 2.50) for the experimental and control groups, respectively, t = 0.62, p = 0.53, Cohen’s d = 0.12. These results confirm that both groups were equivalent prior to the intervention, ensuring that subsequent changes could be attributed to the experimental treatment rather than pre-existing differences. Table 2 Pre- and Post-Intervention Comparison of the Experimental Group on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment Group 2 Experimental (Pre) Experimental (Post) t p Cohen’s d Variable Mean S.D Mean S.D Workplace incivility 65.8 7.79 58.9 5.56 6.55 < 0.01 0.92 Job stress 151.6 8.00 145.0 8.75 4.02 < 0.01 0.56 Organizational commitment 19.5 2.58 25.0 3.52 8.80 < 0.01 1.24 Pre- and Post-Intervention Comparison of the Experimental Group Pre and Post Intervention Comparison for experimental group This table presents the effects of the intervention on the experimental group by comparing pre- and post-intervention scores for workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. The mean score for workplace incivility decreased from 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) at pre-test to 58.9 (S.D. = 5.56) at post-test, with a significant t-value of 6.55 (p < 0.01) and a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.92), indicating a substantial reduction in incivility following the intervention. Job stress also decreased from 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) to 145.0 (S.D. = 8.75), t = 4.02, p < 0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.56), suggesting meaningful stress reduction among participants. In contrast, organizational commitment increased significantly from 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) to 25.0 (S.D. = 3.52), t = 8.80, p < 0.01, with a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.24), demonstrating a marked improvement in employees’ emotional attachment and identification with their organization. These results collectively indicate that the intervention had a significant positive impact on reducing workplace incivility and job stress while enhancing organizational commitment within the experimental group. Table 3 Pre- and Post Comparison of the Control Group on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment Group 3 Control (Pre) Control (Post) t p Cohen’s d Variable Mean S.D Mean S.D Workplace incivility 66.5 9.13 69.1 7.24 3.51 < 0.01 0.49 Job stress 149.1 5.94 153.3 8.77 3.60 < 0.01 0.50 Organizational commitment 19.2 2.50 18.6 3.39 1.68 0.09 0.23 Pre and Post Comparison for control group Pre and Post Comparison for control group This table presents changes in the control group from pre- to post-intervention for workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. Workplace incivility increased from a mean of 66.5 (S.D. = 9.13) at pre-test to 69.1 (S.D. = 7.24) at post-test, t = 3.51, p < 0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.49), indicating a significant worsening in incivility over time. Similarly, job stress increased from 149.1 (S.D. = 5.94) to 153.3 (S.D. = 8.77), t = 3.60, p < 0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50), reflecting heightened stress among control participants. In contrast, organizational commitment slightly decreased from 19.2 (S.D. = 2.50) to 18.6 (S.D. = 3.39), t = 1.68, p = 0.09, with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.23), indicating a non-significant reduction in commitment. Overall, these findings suggest that without intervention, the control group experienced increases in workplace incivility and job stress, while organizational commitment remained largely unchanged. 4. Discussion The present research paper presents strong evidence on the effectiveness of Civility, Respect, and Engagement on the Workplace (CREW) program in reducing incivility at the workplace and work-related stress and increasing organizational commitment among academicins. H1: Academicians in the experimental group will show a significant reduction in workplace incivility after participating in the CREW program compared to their pre-intervention scores. Workplace incivility (encompassing behaviors that are rude or otherwise disrespectful) is detrimental to employee well-being, satisfaction, and commitment. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) training is aimed at establishing a culture that promotes respect and good, professional interaction via programmed or enforced group talks and sessions. In the present study, workplace incivility scores in the experimental group decreased from 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) to 58.9 (S.D. = 5.56) post-intervention (t = 6.55, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.92), indicating a significant reduction. Research supports its effectiveness:( 15 ) found significant reductions in incivility at intervention sites, and ( 16 ) reported improvements in civility norms and interpersonal climate following CREW participation. These findings suggest that CREW can create a positive and respectful academic environment, supporting the hypothesis that faculty in the experimental group would experience a significant decrease in workplace incivility after the intervention. H2: Academicians in the experimental group will report a significant decrease in job stress following the CREW intervention compared to pre-intervention levels. Job stress among academicians can negatively affect mental health, productivity, and overall well-being. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program is designed to reduce such stress by fostering a respectful, engaging, and collaborative work environment through structured sessions and team activities. In the present study, job stress scores in the experimental group decreased from 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) to 145.0 (S.D. = 8.75) post-intervention (t = 4.02, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.56), indicating a significant reduction in stress. Research supports the effectiveness of interventions like CREW in mitigating stress; for instance, ( 17 ) found that participatory workplace improvement programs significantly reduced stress-related symptoms among employees .These findings suggest that CREW can similarly help academicians manage workload pressures and interpersonal challenges, supporting the hypothesis that the experimental group will experience a significant decrease in job stress following the intervention. H3: Academicians in the experimental group will exhibit a significant increase in organizational commitment after the CREW program compared to pre-intervention levels Organizational commitment refers to the psychological attachment an employee has toward their organization, influencing their willingness to remain and exert effort on its behalf, and it is associated with higher job satisfaction, reduced turnover, and improved performance. In the present study, organizational commitment scores in the experimental group increased from 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) to 25.0 (S.D. = 3.52) post-intervention (t = 8.80, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 1.24), indicating a significant improvement. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program fosters a respectful and engaging work environment, enhancing employees’ attitudes and attachment to the organization. Supporting research shows that factors such as employee empowerment, leadership, and trust positively influence organizational commitment, with( 18 ) reporting significant associations between empowerment and commitment among healthcare professionals and ( 19 ) highlighting the role of trust and leadership in improving commitment levels .These findings suggest that the CREW program can effectively increase organizational commitment among academicians by promoting a culture of respect, engagement, and empowerment. H4: The control group will show increased workplace incivility and job stress, with no significant improvement in organizational commitment. In the control group, the findings revealed a significant increase in workplace incivility from pre-test (M = 66.5, SD = 9.13) to post-test (M = 69.1, SD = 7.24), t (51) = 3.51, p < .01, d = 0.49, and a similar rise in job stress from pre-test (M = 149.1, SD = 5.94) to post-test (M = 153.3, SD = 8.77), t (51) = 3.60, p < .01, d = 0.50, indicating a moderate effect size in both cases. Organizational commitment, however, did not improve and instead showed a slight but statistically non-significant decline from pre-test (M = 19.2, SD = 2.50) to post-test (M = 18.6, SD = 3.39), t (51) = 1.68, p = 0.09, d = 0.23. These results suggest that in the absence of any structured intervention, academicians are more likely to experience worsening workplace conditions, characterized by greater incivility and stress, which can erode collegial relationships and faculty well-being. The stagnation in organizational commitment further indicates that without institutional efforts to address workplace issues, faculty members are unlikely to feel a stronger sense of loyalty or engagement over time. This pattern is consistent with existing literature that shows unaddressed workplace stressors tend to escalate, thereby increasing strain and dissatisfaction, while failing to enhance commitment. Overall, the control group findings underscore the necessity of implementing proactive interventions like CREW to prevent the natural deterioration of workplace climate and to support the psychological well-being and organizational alignment of academicians. The results from the control group, showing increased workplace incivility and job stress with no improvement in organizational commitment, are consistent with prior evidence that uncivil behavior if left unaddressed can escalate and negatively impact employee well-being. A longitudinal study of Swedish engineers demonstrated that workplace incivility predicted future bullying and declines in psychological health, even after controlling for baseline conditions ( 20 ).Similarly, research in academic settings shows that incivility contributes to higher stress, lower satisfaction, and reduced commitment among faculty members ( 21 ).These findings highlight the risks of inaction and underscore the necessity of interventions like CREW to prevent deterioration in workplace climate. 5. Conclusion The result of this study shows that the CREW (Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workplace) program is effective in enhancing workplace outcomes amongst academicians. Faculty members who underwent the intervention exhibited a considerable drop in workplace incivility, a significant drop in job stress, and a significant rise in organizational commitment following intervention. The results indicate that some well-developed and team-based initiatives encouraging respect and cooperation as well as engagement can positively transform academic psychosocial working conditions to a significant extent. Altogether, the findings confirm first the usefulness of CREW as a practical and evidence-based solution to help implement a positive, supportive, and productive workplace culture amongst academicians and the applicability of expanding the solution within the scope of higher education institutions. 6. Limitations Despite its valuable findings, this study is not without limitations. First, the sample size was relatively modest (N = 104), and participants were drawn only from public universities, which may limit the generalizability of the results to private institutions or broader organizational contexts. Second, reliance on self-report measures may introduce social desirability bias and common method variance. Third, the quasi-experimental design with a wait-list control group, while practical, may still be vulnerable to uncontrolled external influences (e.g., institutional changes, workload fluctuations) that could affect outcomes. Lastly, cultural and contextual factors specific to Indian academia may restrict applicability of these results to different sociocultural or organizational environments. 7. Implications The findings have both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to workplace behaviour literature by validating the CREW program as an effective framework for addressing incivility and stress while strengthening organizational commitment in academic settings. Practically, institutions can implement CREW as a structured initiative to build civility, respect, and engagement among faculty, thereby improving psychological well-being, reducing burnout, and fostering a more supportive organizational climate. Policymakers and academic leaders may consider incorporating such programs into faculty development and organizational policies to enhance retention, satisfaction, and productivity. Future research should explore the longitudinal impact of CREW, adapt it to diverse organizational contexts, and integrate objective measures (e.g., performance evaluations, absenteeism records) to complement self-reports. Abbreviations CREW: Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work OC: Organizational Commitment JS: Job Stress WI: Workplace Incivility Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Manipal University Jaipur, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research received no external funding. Authors' contributions Ekta Jain and Khushi Jain were responsible for data collection and drafting the manuscript. Charu Dhankar contributed to the conceptualization of the study, provided critical revisions, and supervised the overall work.All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors express sincere gratitude to all participating academicians for their time and cooperation. Special thanks to Manipal University Jaipur for providing institutional and administrative support during the research. References Andersson LM, Pearson CM. Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace. Acad Manage Rev. 1999;24(3):452. Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J Occup Health Psychol. 2001;6(1):64–80. Namin BH, Øgaard T, Røislien J. Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):25. Kanitha D, Naik PR. Experience of Workplace Incivility and Its Impact on Stress and Turnover Intention among the Nurses Working at a Hospital. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2021;26(3):285–7. Qi L, Chaudhary NI, Yao K, Mirza F, Khalid R. The moderating role of transformational leadership on the relationship between deviant workplace behaviors and employee turnover intentions in China. Front Psychol. 2022;13. Hodgins M, McNamara PM. An Enlightened Environment? Workplace Bullying and Incivility in Irish Higher Education. Sage Open. 2019;9(4). Taylor H, Harle CA, Johnson SM, Menachemi N. Workplace Incivility Experienced By Health Administration Faculty. J Health Adm Educ. 2019;36(2):191–216. Keashly L, Neuman JH. Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education. Administrative Theory Praxis. 2010;32(1):48–70. Sherrod JT, Lewallen LP. Workplace Incivility and Its Effects on the Physical and Psychological Health of Nursing Faculty. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021;42(5):278–84. Anjum W, Habib S, Qazi Z, Shahzad A, Mahmood S, Ullah I. Linking Workplace Incivility to Perceived Stress: Moderating Role of Psychological Capital among General Health Professionals 1. Indian Journal of Economics and Business [Internet]. 2021;20(3). Available from: http://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php Osatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L, Civility. Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW). J Appl Behav Sci. 2009;45(3):384–410. Huseynova G, İslamoğlu M. Mind over matter: mindfulness as a buffer against workplace incivility. Front Psychol. 2024;15. Hanrahan M, Leiter MP. Workplace Mistreatment. In: Wellbeing. Wiley; 2014. pp. 1–32. Clark CM, Landis TT, Barbosa-Leiker C. National Study on Faculty and Administrators’ Perceptions of Civility and Incivility in Nursing Education. Nurse Educ. 2021;46(5):276–83. Osatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L, Civility. Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW). J Appl Behav Sci. 2009;45(3):384–410. Sawada U, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Miyamoto Y, Speigel L, Leiter MP. The Effects of the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW) Program on Social Climate and Work Engagement in a Psychiatric Ward in Japan: A Pilot Study. Nurs Rep. 2021;11(2):320–30. Tondokora T, NAKATA A, OTSUKA Y, YANAGIHARA N, ANAN A, KODAMA H, et al. Effects of participatory workplace improvement program on stress-related biomarkers and self-reported stress among university hospital nurses: a preliminary study. Ind Health. 2021;59(2):128–41. Fantahun B, Dellie E, Worku N, Debie A. Organizational commitment and associated factors among health professionals working in public hospitals of southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):180. Paparisabet M, Jalalpour AH, Farahi F, Gholami Z, Shaygani F, Jalili N, et al. Investigating the organizational commitment and its associated factors among the staff of the health sector: a cross-sectional research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1373. Holm K, Torkelson E, Bäckström M. Workplace incivility as a risk factor for workplace bullying and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study of targets and bystanders in a sample of swedish engineers. BMC Psychol. 2022;10(1):299. Taylor H, Harle CA, Johnson SM, Menachemi N. Workplace Incivility Experienced By Health Administration Faculty. J Health Adm Educ. 2019;36(2):191–216. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 14 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 23 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 23 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7687239","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":549812329,"identity":"565910e5-1702-49a8-b302-559e3b53cb0b","order_by":0,"name":"Ekta jain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Manipal University Jaipur","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ekta","middleName":"","lastName":"jain","suffix":""},{"id":549812330,"identity":"828f8eff-5297-4e5f-b851-2b9cd7fc2cd3","order_by":1,"name":"Charu Dhankar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Manipal University Jaipur","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Charu","middleName":"","lastName":"Dhankar","suffix":""},{"id":549812331,"identity":"82351004-aead-4e93-b5e3-d985a581ced8","order_by":2,"name":"Khushi jain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Manipal University Jaipur","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khushi","middleName":"","lastName":"jain","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-23 01:53:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96793966,"identity":"90b96e02-555c-4ea4-848f-55d4d127a70c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:03","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":273892,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"RevisedInterventionpaper.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/9653ff5f5e9f800ac647eec8.docx"},{"id":96793976,"identity":"ae6cc9d1-9e5f-42cb-8bf2-46c958bcbfaa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4989,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e0fa1077149c445b8f955ab92417d477.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/6068e08b19623ca0b4bb29d8.json"},{"id":96793969,"identity":"821b8204-f656-4fab-8cd2-1fbab4612c70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78532,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e0fa1077149c445b8f955ab92417d4771enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/a61e36977473c6bcf4cc8be4.xml"},{"id":96793963,"identity":"77b3453c-d108-42a4-b0fb-a197615f58aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":200279,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/828728bc64521ea640614806.jpeg"},{"id":96793978,"identity":"21eb5246-761a-47a2-9ed4-2ab4f69ea33d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"emf","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":440996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.emf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/708422904aa300cf3182285a.emf"},{"id":96916906,"identity":"9302090a-f633-4af5-9947-b3fea8aed961","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 14:09:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":203347,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/05af6bae375ff1fe37a62595.jpeg"},{"id":96793967,"identity":"b5064ef0-527b-45a9-8da4-b12f80c9c107","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:03","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":55330,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/5de7d3991b40d31b1b1d1917.png"},{"id":96793961,"identity":"a05234ba-4316-4029-8e78-f021bc9b6f5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:03","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/3494526a641891853b4e1e26.png"},{"id":96917001,"identity":"fa90d02d-e62c-4aef-b5c6-08d85fa713da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 14:09:08","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":52332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/234c68801b3a71ab63bc725c.png"},{"id":96793962,"identity":"84e55199-d833-47b9-af32-922f9daa1bc8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:03","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":76176,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"e0fa1077149c445b8f955ab92417d4771structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/2340059801793617ec8f58b9.xml"},{"id":96793970,"identity":"8b7de209-7ec0-4db2-9110-edf6c71bb8bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":86357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/7ade2d961b055f66092263eb.html"},{"id":96793971,"identity":"b5093cfa-8e75-4875-9cce-d227d727e545","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":200344,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre-Intervention Comparison of Groups\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/4c68852d753d3fe853362900.png"},{"id":96793968,"identity":"173d14c8-e3ff-4a1e-b513-d01f0efeeaa7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:04","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre- and Post-Intervention Comparison of the Experimental Group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/0152b57a34c06de3dbf178a3.png"},{"id":96793955,"identity":"a4164664-1583-46a3-ae0a-a267b9e9fbcb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-26 07:09:01","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":196871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre and Post Comparison for control group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/7540cd68090c1dee43a239fe.png"},{"id":96922888,"identity":"5cb927ae-30c6-4ef5-a57d-28eb7d6f72c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-27 14:20:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1388274,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7687239/v1/0c619e8c-0619-4078-a805-9b877fcbb328.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Effectiveness of the CREW Intervention in Reducing Workplace Incivility and Job Stress While Enhancing Organizational Commitment Among Academicians: A Quasi- Experimental Study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, workplace incivility has emerged as a significant organizational challenge across a wide range of professions. It is commonly defined as low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm, which violates norms of mutual respect (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).This includes subtle forms of mistreatment such as rudeness, sarcasm, exclusion, and dismissiveness, which, although seemingly minor on the surface, can accumulate over time and have profound organizational consequences. A growing body of research indicates that repeated exposure to incivility contributes to emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, and increased intentions to leave the organization (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, [NO_PRINTED_FORM] (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)found a strong positive correlation between incivility and turnover intentions among hospital nurses, reinforcing the damaging effect of uncivil behaviours on employee retention. Similarly, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) noted that incivility had been prominent in predicting withdrawal behaviours and demoralisation in Chinese universities, among both academic and non-academic employees, especially where transformational leadership was not practiced. The findings are critical in highlighting how the problem of workplace incivility is insidious and widespread and can negatively affect the psychological well-being and the organizational fit of employees in the various occupational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrent studies continue to highlight the increasing rates of incivility in all workplace areas, and, notably, some troubling trends are being observed in higher learning establishments. Although the study focuses on academic institutions, which are usually regarded as separate spaces of intellectual exchange on a scholarly or collegiate level, they also imbue the workplace business-like dynamics related to competitive pressures, hierarchical authority, and limited resources, factors that grow strained interpersonal dynamics and incivility(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Several studies document elevated bullying and incivility rates among faculty, with national surveys indicating that around \u003cb\u003e40\u0026ndash;50%\u003c/b\u003e of academics have witnessed or experienced such behaviours\u0026mdash;women, early-career academics, and minority groups being disproportionately affected. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e)These behaviours not only degrade individual well-being but also impair teamwork, innovation, and teaching effectiveness, as evidenced in both nursing and physical therapy education settings where faculty-reported incivility has been linked to reduced job satisfaction and heightened psychological stress (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most pressing concerns arising from incivility is its relationship with occupational stress. Faculty members are frequently expected to balance teaching, research, administrative responsibilities, and service all under the scrutiny of performance metrics and funding constraints. Such complex demands, when compounded by a lack of respect and psychological safety, can significantly elevate stress levels. Chronic job stress, in turn, is associated with absenteeism, burnout, and withdrawal from organizational engagement (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the cumulative impact of incivility and stress can undermine organizational commitment, reducing faculty members\u0026rsquo; emotional attachment, identification with institutional values, and willingness to invest discretionary effort (Lee \u0026amp; Idris, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment is a crucial factor in determining the overall effectiveness and sustainability of academic institutions. It reflects the psychological bond employees share with their organization, influencing their willingness to remain, perform, and contribute beyond formal job requirements. High levels of organizational commitment are associated with reduced turnover, improved job satisfaction, and greater organizational citizenship behaviors, all of which are essential for the growth and stability of universities. In academic settings, where the quality of teaching, research, and collegial collaboration depends heavily on faculty engagement, fostering commitment becomes even more significant. Strengthening organizational commitment not only enhances individual performance but also builds a positive institutional culture that supports long-term academic excellence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite growing awareness of these issues, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to address workplace incivility in academic settings remain limited. Most institutional responses have been reactive, focusing on conflict resolution or punitive measures, rather than proactively cultivating respectful, inclusive work cultures. One promising intervention that has gained traction in healthcare and public service sectors is the Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work (CREW) program. Developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, CREW is a team-based initiative that aims to improve workplace climate by fostering respectful communication, trust, and collegial engagement through structured, facilitated sessions over several weeks (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical studies conducted in hospital systems, government agencies, and correctional facilities have shown that CREW can significantly enhance civility, reduce burnout, and increase organizational commitment (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, a critical gap remains: CREW has not yet been empirically implemented or evaluated in higher education settings. While experts have advocated for its adaptation in academia\u0026mdash;given the structural similarities to healthcare organizations in terms of interdependence, autonomy, and workload pressures\u0026mdash;published studies are yet to demonstrate its effectiveness with faculty populations. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) noted the absence of CREW trials in university contexts and emphasized the need for controlled research to evaluate its applicability and impact in academic environments. More recently, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) reiterated this call, stating that \u0026ldquo;civility-promoting interventions like CREW remain conspicuously absent in the higher education toolkit despite mounting evidence of incivility\u0026rsquo;s prevalence and consequences.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to fill this critical gap by conducting a quasi-experimental evaluation of the CREW intervention among academicians in Indian public universities. Grounded in social learning and organizational culture theories, CREW sessions are designed to model and reinforce positive workplace behaviours, gradually transforming interpersonal dynamics and climate norms. The present research examines whether participation in the CREW intervention leads to a reduction in perceived workplace incivility, decreased job stress, and improved organizational commitment among faculty members. Additionally, it investigates whether job stress acts as a mediating mechanism through which incivility impacts organizational commitment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Research Question\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoes participation in the CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program lead to a significant reduction in workplace incivility, a decrease in job stress, and an increase in organizational commitment among academicians?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.2 Research Objectives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine the effect of the CREW program on workplace incivility among academicians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess the effect of the CREW program on job stress among academicians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the effect of the CREW program on organizational commitment among academicians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine the variations in workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment in the control group without CREW intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.3 Hypotheses\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: Academicians in the experimental group will show a significant reduction in workplace incivility after participating in the CREW program compared to their pre-intervention scores.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Academicians in the experimental group will report a significant decrease in job stress following the CREW intervention compared to pre-intervention levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Academicians in the experimental group will exhibit a significant increase in organizational commitment after the CREW program compared to pre-intervention levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe control group will show increased workplace incivility and job stress, with no significant improvement in organizational commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Sample\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study included 104 academician (46 males and 54 females) recruited through convenience sampling from three public universities located in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Participants were full-time faculty members from a variety of academic disciplines including science, commerce, humanities, education, and management. Out of the total sample, 52 participants were assigned to the intervention group and 52 to the wait-list control group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.5 Tools Used\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/b\u003e: - Developed by \u0026ldquo;Upinder Dhar, Prashant Mishra and\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cp\u003eD.K Srivastava in the year 2002\u0026rdquo;. It consists of 8 items. The reliability of the test is0.60.(Dhar et al., 2002)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUncivil Workplace behaviour Questionnaire\u003c/b\u003e: - Developed by \u0026ldquo;Martin and Hine in the year 2005\u0026rdquo;. It consists of 20 items. It is a 5-point Likert scale. The reliability of thetest is 0.80. (Martin \u0026amp; Hine, 2005)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCREW Intervention :-\u003c/b\u003e The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program was implemented over a period of six months, comprising 18 sessions (three sessions per month) conducted within the academic setting. Each session lasted approximately 30 minutes and was scheduled during regular working hours to ensure accessibility. The sessions were facilitated directly by the researcher, who followed the standardized CREW guidelines to ensure consistency in delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe program was voluntary. Sessions were announced at department meetings, and through institutional email, and facilitators requested those academic staff members on campus to attend. Every single session incorporated at least some of the CREW toolkit, (e.g., How would we show one another respect here?) as well as specifically institutional materials that helped to make the sessions more relevant to the academicians (e.g. What constitutes a collaborative faculty environment? or What motivates me teach this semester?) Also, customized activity sheets were provided to reflect certain issues arising in academic departments (e.g. How can we foster a more inclusive academic culture? and What is your ideal regarding departmental meetings?).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The participants were invited to discuss their thoughts and experiences in a dialogic form with a special attention to intimate collegiality and professional civility. The purpose of this approach was to encourage free discussions concerning interpersonal respect and organizational culture at academic forums. The research team assisted in scheduling sessions and kept records of participant attendance and professional role in a systematic manner at each session.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.6 Procedure of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quasi-experimental design was employed with 104 faculty members randomly assigned to an intervention group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52) and a wait-list control group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52). All participants completed pre-test measures of workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. The intervention group then underwent the six-week CREW program, consisting of weekly sessions on civility, respect, and engagement, while the control group continued with regular activities. Following the intervention, both groups completed post-test measures, and results were compared to assess effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre-Intervention Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperimental (Pre)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControl (Pre)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVariable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob stress\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e151.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e149.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre-Intervention Comparison of Groups\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePre-Intervention Comparison for experimental group\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pre-intervention comparison between the experimental and control groups showed no significant differences across workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment, indicating that the groups were comparable at baseline. The experimental group reported a mean workplace incivility score of 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) and the control group 66.5 (S.D. = 9.13), with a t-value of 0.41 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.68) and a very small effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08). For job stress, the experimental group had a mean of 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) compared to 149.1 (S.D. = 5.94) in the control group, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.77, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35, indicating a small difference. Organizational commitment scores were also similar, with means of 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) and 19.2 (S.D. = 2.50) for the experimental and control groups, respectively, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.53, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12. These results confirm that both groups were equivalent prior to the intervention, ensuring that subsequent changes could be attributed to the experimental treatment rather than pre-existing differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre- and Post-Intervention Comparison of the Experimental Group on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperimental (Pre)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperimental (Post)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVariable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob stress\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e151.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e145.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre- and Post-Intervention Comparison of the Experimental Group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePre and Post Intervention Comparison for experimental group\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis table presents the effects of the intervention on the experimental group by comparing pre- and post-intervention scores for workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. The mean score for workplace incivility decreased from 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) at pre-test to 58.9 (S.D. = 5.56) at post-test, with a significant t-value of 6.55 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and a large effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92), indicating a substantial reduction in incivility following the intervention. Job stress also decreased from 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) to 145.0 (S.D. = 8.75), t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.02, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56), suggesting meaningful stress reduction among participants. In contrast, organizational commitment increased significantly from 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) to 25.0 (S.D. = 3.52), t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.80, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, with a very large effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24), demonstrating a marked improvement in employees\u0026rsquo; emotional attachment and identification with their organization. These results collectively indicate that the intervention had a significant positive impact on reducing workplace incivility and job stress while enhancing organizational commitment within the experimental group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre- and Post Comparison of the Control Group on Workplace Incivility, Job Stress, and Organizational Commitment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControl (Pre)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControl (Post)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVariable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.D\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob stress\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e149.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e153.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePre and Post Comparison for control group\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePre and Post Comparison for control group\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis table presents changes in the control group from pre- to post-intervention for workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment. Workplace incivility increased from a mean of 66.5 (S.D. = 9.13) at pre-test to 69.1 (S.D. = 7.24) at post-test, t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.51, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.49), indicating a significant worsening in incivility over time. Similarly, job stress increased from 149.1 (S.D. = 5.94) to 153.3 (S.D. = 8.77), t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.60, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, with a moderate effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50), reflecting heightened stress among control participants. In contrast, organizational commitment slightly decreased from 19.2 (S.D. = 2.50) to 18.6 (S.D. = 3.39), t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.68, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, with a small effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23), indicating a non-significant reduction in commitment. Overall, these findings suggest that without intervention, the control group experienced increases in workplace incivility and job stress, while organizational commitment remained largely unchanged.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present research paper presents strong evidence on the effectiveness of Civility, Respect, and Engagement on the Workplace (CREW) program in reducing incivility at the workplace and work-related stress and increasing organizational commitment among academicins.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eH1: Academicians in the experimental group will show a significant reduction in workplace incivility after participating in the CREW program compared to their pre-intervention scores.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility (encompassing behaviors that are rude or otherwise disrespectful) is detrimental to employee well-being, satisfaction, and commitment. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) training is aimed at establishing a culture that promotes respect and good, professional interaction via programmed or enforced group talks and sessions. In the present study, workplace incivility scores in the experimental group decreased from 65.8 (S.D. = 7.79) to 58.9 (S.D. = 5.56) post-intervention (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.55, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92), indicating a significant reduction. Research supports its effectiveness:(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e) found significant reductions in incivility at intervention sites, and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) reported improvements in civility norms and interpersonal climate following CREW participation. These findings suggest that CREW can create a positive and respectful academic environment, supporting the hypothesis that faculty in the experimental group would experience a significant decrease in workplace incivility after the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eH2: Academicians in the experimental group will report a significant decrease in job stress following the CREW intervention compared to pre-intervention levels.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob stress among academicians can negatively affect mental health, productivity, and overall well-being. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program is designed to reduce such stress by fostering a respectful, engaging, and collaborative work environment through structured sessions and team activities. In the present study, job stress scores in the experimental group decreased from 151.6 (S.D. = 8.00) to 145.0 (S.D. = 8.75) post-intervention (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.02, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56), indicating a significant reduction in stress. Research supports the effectiveness of interventions like CREW in mitigating stress; for instance, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e) found that participatory workplace improvement programs significantly reduced stress-related symptoms among employees .These findings suggest that CREW can similarly help academicians manage workload pressures and interpersonal challenges, supporting the hypothesis that the experimental group will experience a significant decrease in job stress following the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eH3: Academicians in the experimental group will exhibit a significant increase in organizational commitment after the CREW program compared to pre-intervention levels\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment refers to the psychological attachment an employee has toward their organization, influencing their willingness to remain and exert effort on its behalf, and it is associated with higher job satisfaction, reduced turnover, and improved performance. In the present study, organizational commitment scores in the experimental group increased from 19.5 (S.D. = 2.58) to 25.0 (S.D. = 3.52) post-intervention (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.80, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24), indicating a significant improvement. The CREW (Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace) program fosters a respectful and engaging work environment, enhancing employees\u0026rsquo; attitudes and attachment to the organization. Supporting research shows that factors such as employee empowerment, leadership, and trust positively influence organizational commitment, with(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) reporting significant associations between empowerment and commitment among healthcare professionals and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e) highlighting the role of trust and leadership in improving commitment levels .These findings suggest that the CREW program can effectively increase organizational commitment among academicians by promoting a culture of respect, engagement, and empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eH4: The control group will show increased workplace incivility and job stress, with no significant improvement in organizational commitment.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the control group, the findings revealed a significant increase in workplace incivility from pre-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;66.5, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.13) to post-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;69.1, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.24), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(51)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.49, and a similar rise in job stress from pre-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149.1, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.94) to post-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;153.3, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.77), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(51)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.50, indicating a moderate effect size in both cases. Organizational commitment, however, did not improve and instead showed a slight but statistically non-significant decline from pre-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.2, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.50) to post-test (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.6, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.39), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(51)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23. These results suggest that in the absence of any structured intervention, academicians are more likely to experience worsening workplace conditions, characterized by greater incivility and stress, which can erode collegial relationships and faculty well-being. The stagnation in organizational commitment further indicates that without institutional efforts to address workplace issues, faculty members are unlikely to feel a stronger sense of loyalty or engagement over time. This pattern is consistent with existing literature that shows unaddressed workplace stressors tend to escalate, thereby increasing strain and dissatisfaction, while failing to enhance commitment. Overall, the control group findings underscore the necessity of implementing proactive interventions like CREW to prevent the natural deterioration of workplace climate and to support the psychological well-being and organizational alignment of academicians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results from the control group, showing increased workplace incivility and job stress with no improvement in organizational commitment, are consistent with prior evidence that uncivil behavior if left unaddressed can escalate and negatively impact employee well-being. A longitudinal study of Swedish engineers demonstrated that workplace incivility predicted future bullying and declines in psychological health, even after controlling for baseline conditions (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e).Similarly, research in academic settings shows that incivility contributes to higher stress, lower satisfaction, and reduced commitment among faculty members (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e).These findings highlight the risks of inaction and underscore the necessity of interventions like CREW to prevent deterioration in workplace climate.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe result of this study shows that the CREW (Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workplace) program is effective in enhancing workplace outcomes amongst academicians. Faculty members who underwent the intervention exhibited a considerable drop in workplace incivility, a significant drop in job stress, and a significant rise in organizational commitment following intervention. The results indicate that some well-developed and team-based initiatives encouraging respect and cooperation as well as engagement can positively transform academic psychosocial working conditions to a significant extent. Altogether, the findings confirm first the usefulness of CREW as a practical and evidence-based solution to help implement a positive, supportive, and productive workplace culture amongst academicians and the applicability of expanding the solution within the scope of higher education institutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite its valuable findings, this study is not without limitations. First, the sample size was relatively modest (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;104), and participants were drawn only from public universities, which may limit the generalizability of the results to private institutions or broader organizational contexts. Second, reliance on self-report measures may introduce social desirability bias and common method variance. Third, the quasi-experimental design with a wait-list control group, while practical, may still be vulnerable to uncontrolled external influences (e.g., institutional changes, workload fluctuations) that could affect outcomes. Lastly, cultural and contextual factors specific to Indian academia may restrict applicability of these results to different sociocultural or organizational environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings have both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to workplace behaviour literature by validating the CREW program as an effective framework for addressing incivility and stress while strengthening organizational commitment in academic settings. Practically, institutions can implement CREW as a structured initiative to build civility, respect, and engagement among faculty, thereby improving psychological well-being, reducing burnout, and fostering a more supportive organizational climate. Policymakers and academic leaders may consider incorporating such programs into faculty development and organizational policies to enhance retention, satisfaction, and productivity. Future research should explore the longitudinal impact of CREW, adapt it to diverse organizational contexts, and integrate objective measures (e.g., performance evaluations, absenteeism records) to complement self-reports.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eCREW: Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;OC: Organizational Commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;JS: Job Stress\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;WI: Workplace Incivility\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Manipal University Jaipur, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEkta Jain and Khushi Jain were responsible for data collection and drafting the \u0026nbsp;manuscript. Charu Dhankar contributed to the conceptualization of the study, provided critical revisions, and supervised the overall work.All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors express sincere gratitude to all participating academicians for their time and cooperation. Special thanks to Manipal University Jaipur for providing institutional and administrative support during the research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersson LM, Pearson CM. Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace. Acad Manage Rev. 1999;24(3):452.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J Occup Health Psychol. 2001;6(1):64\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNamin BH, \u0026Oslash;gaard T, R\u0026oslash;islien J. Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKanitha D, Naik PR. Experience of Workplace Incivility and Its Impact on Stress and Turnover Intention among the Nurses Working at a Hospital. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2021;26(3):285\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQi L, Chaudhary NI, Yao K, Mirza F, Khalid R. The moderating role of transformational leadership on the relationship between deviant workplace behaviors and employee turnover intentions in China. Front Psychol. 2022;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHodgins M, McNamara PM. An Enlightened Environment? Workplace Bullying and Incivility in Irish Higher Education. Sage Open. 2019;9(4).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor H, Harle CA, Johnson SM, Menachemi N. Workplace Incivility Experienced By Health Administration Faculty. J Health Adm Educ. 2019;36(2):191\u0026ndash;216.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeashly L, Neuman JH. Faculty Experiences with Bullying in Higher Education. Administrative Theory Praxis. 2010;32(1):48\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSherrod JT, Lewallen LP. Workplace Incivility and Its Effects on the Physical and Psychological Health of Nursing Faculty. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021;42(5):278\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnjum W, Habib S, Qazi Z, Shahzad A, Mahmood S, Ullah I. Linking Workplace Incivility to Perceived Stress: Moderating Role of Psychological Capital among General Health Professionals 1. Indian Journal of Economics and Business [Internet]. 2021;20(3). Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ashwinanokha.com/IJEB.php\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L, Civility. Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW). J Appl Behav Sci. 2009;45(3):384\u0026ndash;410.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuseynova G, İslamoğlu M. Mind over matter: mindfulness as a buffer against workplace incivility. Front Psychol. 2024;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanrahan M, Leiter MP. Workplace Mistreatment. In: Wellbeing. Wiley; 2014. pp. 1\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClark CM, Landis TT, Barbosa-Leiker C. National Study on Faculty and Administrators\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Civility and Incivility in Nursing Education. Nurse Educ. 2021;46(5):276\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsatuke K, Moore SC, Ward C, Dyrenforth SR, Belton L, Civility. Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW). J Appl Behav Sci. 2009;45(3):384\u0026ndash;410.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSawada U, Shimazu A, Kawakami N, Miyamoto Y, Speigel L, Leiter MP. The Effects of the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW) Program on Social Climate and Work Engagement in a Psychiatric Ward in Japan: A Pilot Study. Nurs Rep. 2021;11(2):320\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTondokora T, NAKATA A, OTSUKA Y, YANAGIHARA N, ANAN A, KODAMA H, et al. Effects of participatory workplace improvement program on stress-related biomarkers and self-reported stress among university hospital nurses: a preliminary study. Ind Health. 2021;59(2):128\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFantahun B, Dellie E, Worku N, Debie A. Organizational commitment and associated factors among health professionals working in public hospitals of southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):180.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaparisabet M, Jalalpour AH, Farahi F, Gholami Z, Shaygani F, Jalili N, et al. Investigating the organizational commitment and its associated factors among the staff of the health sector: a cross-sectional research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):1373.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolm K, Torkelson E, B\u0026auml;ckstr\u0026ouml;m M. Workplace incivility as a risk factor for workplace bullying and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study of targets and bystanders in a sample of swedish engineers. BMC Psychol. 2022;10(1):299.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor H, Harle CA, Johnson SM, Menachemi N. Workplace Incivility Experienced By Health Administration Faculty. J Health Adm Educ. 2019;36(2):191\u0026ndash;216.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"CREW, workplace incivility, job stress, organizational commitment, academicians, quasi-experimental","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility and stress have become increasingly prevalent in academic institutions, affecting faculty morale, commitment, and performance. This quasi-experimental study evaluated the effectiveness of the \u003cem\u003eCivility, Respect, and Engagement at Work\u003c/em\u003e (CREW) intervention among academicians. A total of 104 faculty members from public universities were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52) and a wait-list control group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52). The CREW program was implemented over six months comprising 18 sessions (three sessions per month). Measures of workplace incivility, job stress, and organizational commitment were administered at pre- and post-intervention phases. The intervention group showed significant improvements post-intervention in all three domains: decreased workplace incivility (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.92), reduced job stress (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.56), and enhanced organizational commitment (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24). In contrast, participants in the control group experienced heightened levels of incivility and stress, alongside no notable enhancement in organizational commitment.. These findings underscore the utility of CREW as an evidence-based tool to foster psychological well-being and institutional engagement in academic settings.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Effectiveness of the CREW Intervention in Reducing Workplace Incivility and Job Stress While Enhancing Organizational Commitment Among Academicians: A Quasi- Experimental Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-26 07:08:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7687239/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-14T10:01:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-12T19:18:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-23T08:39:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-23T05:41:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-10-23T05:38:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"518c3668-ceee-4b69-b971-f6297cfd8eae","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-26T07:08:27+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-26 07:08:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7687239","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7687239","identity":"rs-7687239","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}