Fire Service Culture RW

FIRE SERVICE CULTURE: THE INFLUENCE OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOUR
ON COHESION AND RETENTION
by
Rachel L. Whitney
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science with
Honours in Psychology
Acadia University
March, 2012
© Copyright by Rachel L. Whitney, 2012

ii
This thesis by Rachel L. Whitney
is accepted in its present form by the
Department of Psychology
as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Science with Honours
Approved by the Thesis Supervisor
________________________________ ______________
Dr. Michael P. Leiter Date
Approved on behalf of the Head of the Department
________________________________ ______________
Dr. Peter McLeod Date
Approved by the Honours Committee
________________________________ _____________
Sonia Hewitt Date

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

iv
Acknowledgements
I owe my deepest gratitude to everyone who made the completion of this thesis
possible. This thesis would not be possible without the guidance of my supervisor, Dr.
Michael P. Leiter, and my second reader, Dr. Lisa Price. I would also like to thank Dr.
Peter McLeod and the psychology department for providing me with the opportunity to
undertake this amazing learning experience.
I am incredibly thankful for the continuous support I received from Lisa, Frank,
Audrey, Erika, Patricia, and Mike at the Centre for Organizational Research and
Development. Their knowledge, experience, and great sense of humor helped me through
each step of the journey to thesis completion.
I am exceptionally grateful for the enthusiasm and encouragement I received from
all the firefighters involved in this study. In particular, my family at the Wolfville Fire
Department provided inspiration, advice, and support in so many ways.
Above all, I thank my boyfriend Todd for his patience, personal support, and
reassurance throughout this process. He provided valuable advice, was a travel
companion to some of the more distant departments I surveyed, showed interest in my
progress, and encouraged me to persevere. I also extend this gratitude to my mom, dad,
and sister Ashley, for all of your support.

v
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract............................................................................................................................viii
Fire Service Culture: The Influence of Interpersonal Behaviour on Cohesion and
Retention............................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction to the Fire Service ...................................................................................... 2
Fire Service Culture ........................................................................................................ 3
Incivility.......................................................................................................................... 5
Workgroup Cohesion...................................................................................................... 7
Impact of a Negative Workplace Culture ....................................................................... 8
Hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 9
Method .............................................................................................................................. 11
Participants.................................................................................................................... 11
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 11
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 12
Results............................................................................................................................... 14
Table 1 .......................................................................................................................... 15
Table 2 .......................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3 .......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4 .......................................................................................................................... 17
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 18
Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................. 19
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 20

vi
References......................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A....................................................................................................................... 27
Fire Service Study Information Email.............................................................................. 27
Appendix B....................................................................................................................... 29
Research Consent Form.................................................................................................... 29
Appendix C....................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix D....................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix E ....................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix F........................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix G....................................................................................................................... 37

vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables. .............................. 15
Table 2. Contribution of civility and incivility in predicting turnover intention.......... 16
Table 3. Contribution of each rudeness rationale in predicting workplace incivility... 17
Table 4. Significance of included and excluded varibles on workgroup cohesion....... 17

viii
Abstract
Growing turnover rates are an identified issue in the volunteer fire service, yet very few
studies have examined potential explanations for this phenomenon. Gray literature has
proposed a potential relationship between the unique culture of the fire service and
retention outcomes, however no such relationships have been empirically evaluated. This
study used a series of regressions to investigate whether rates of workplace civility and
incivility could predict workgroup cohesion and turnover intention. Three rationales for
uncivil behaviour were also investigated as potential mechanisms for the perpetuation of
a culture of incivility. Results supported each prediction with some limitations. The
quality of workgroup interactions influenced cohesion and turnover intention,
demonstrating the importance of promoting a respectful culture in improving retention.

Fire Service Culture
1
Fire Service Culture: The Influence of Interpersonal Behaviour on Cohesion and
Retention
The pager can go off at any time of day, the details of the emergency typically
unknown until the truck closes in on the scene. Amidst the adrenaline-fueled rush,
firefighters revert to their highest level of training and put their own lives in each other’s
hands. Their safety, and that of the public, relies on how well they can work as a team.
For most, the term “firefighter” invokes the image of fearless entry into a fire-
engulfed structure, even though only 1-5% of a firefighter’s duty time is spent on fire
suppression (Kales, Soteriades, Christophi, & Christiani, 2007). Alarms can include
anything from a multiple fatality accident to animal rescue. Contrary to public perception,
the majority of fire service activity occurs at the fire station and in other non-emergency
duties (Kales et al., 2007). Annual surveys conducted by the National Fire Protection
Association (as cited in Kales et al., 2007) indicate that approximately 65% of a
firefighter’s duty time is spent on non-emergencies, including time at the station. Station
duties can include cooking, cleaning, equipment maintenance, training, fire prevention
initiatives, fundraising, and downtime.
Despite the fact that firefighters spend most of their time engaging in everyday
work and social interactions with one another, existing literature on the fire service
focuses on exposure to critical incidents (Beaton & Murphy, 1993; Brough, 2004). In
addition to traumatic stressors, firefighters also experience a multitude of organizational
stressors that can also result in negative work and health-related consequences (Beaton &
Murphy, 1993; Brough, 2004). Brough (2004) found that organizational stressors were
far more predictive of job satisfaction than traumatic stressors in emergency service

2
workers. Although not measured in that study, the influence of organizational culture on
organizational stressors was proposed. Qualitative studies of firefighters have
inadvertently identified the organizational culture as a detrimental component of the
profession, but no quantitative measures have been used to investigate culture and the
impact it has on members of the fire service (Brough, 2004; Kitt, 2009).
Introduction to the Fire Service
Although the job title implies putting out fires, the duties of a firefighter extend
far beyond fire suppression. Depending on the needs of a particular area, firefighter duties
can also include emergency medical response, search and rescue, ice and water rescue,
high and low angle ropes rescue, vehicle extrication, hazardous materials response, and
aid in natural disasters. Firefighters also have additional roles in the community,
providing service to special events and public safety education. The cornucopia of
services firefighters provide can be based out of career, volunteer, or composite
departments.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2009 National Fire Experience
Survey found that 71% of firefighters in the United States were volunteers (Karter Jr. &
Stein, 2010). Compared to the US, Canada has a higher percentage of primarily volunteer
departments when compared by community size (Karter Jr. & Stein, 2010). Annual
national savings from the U.S. volunteer fire service is 37.2 billion dollars, which is an
average of approximately 45,000 dollars saved from each volunteer’s service (U.S. Fire
Administration [USFA], 2007). Most communities in Canada rely on the services of
volunteers for emergency protection and prevention, therefore adequate retention of
firefighters is paramount to the fulfillment of such essential community duties.

3
“I’ve always said, even now, the toughest part of being a firefighter is the culture.” (Kitt,
2009, p. 199).
Firefighting is a high-risk profession with a hierarchical membership structure,
making the fire service similar to police and military organizations (Archer, 1999; Kitt,
2009). Such paramilitary organizations are typically male-dominated workplaces with a
strong sense of tradition and secrecy (Archer, 1999; Thurnell-Read & Parker, 2008).
Firefighters enter the service as a probationary member and are not considered to
be a full member until they have served a designated amount of time. The probationary
period is when “probies” or “rookies” learn the customs of their department, become
familiar with the equipment, and strive to gain social acceptance from their fellow team
members. Keeping with tradition and passing on what they experienced, veteran
firefighters will “test” probationary members to see if they will comply with the culture
before they are granted social acceptance (Kitt, 2009). Mistreatment towards new
members has been cited as a source of turnover in the fire service (USFA, 2007).
Accounts of behaviour towards new recruits range anywhere from lighthearted
teasing to harassment to targeted deliberate attempts to drive a new member out of the
service (Kitt, 2009). A study on fire departments in the UK, US, and Ireland revealed that
verbal and even physical abuse of members, especially in the probationary stage, is an
accepted cultural norm of the fire service (Archer, 1999). Such abuse is rationalized as
horseplay used to build character and team cohesiveness. Relatively mild examples of
differential treatment towards probationary members include forced assignment to duties
such as cooking for senior members, scrubbing the toilet, and retrieving takeout from

4
multiple establishments for the rest of the crew (Kitt, 2009). Some severe forms of
mistreatment have resulted in lawsuits, including a hazing ritual of one department where
a female was forced by male members to shave her pubic hair (Murphy & Murphy, 2010).
More recently, a video posted online showed Macon-Bibb county firefighters hazing
rookies through an acted out armed hostage prank (Willing, 2011). Such publicized
instances of workplace harassment can destroy the community’s support and confidence
in their department.
Mistreatment in the fire service is not isolated towards probationary members; it
is something that can extend throughout a firefighter’s entire career. Most reported cases
are those involving sexual harassment and discrimination. The public is aware of such
cases only because they made it to trial, however there are presumably many more
incidents that are resolved through confidential settlements and others that are never
reported (Murphy & Murphy, 2010).
Victims of incivility and harassment may not report their experience or series of
experiences for an assortment of reasons. A survey of female volunteer firefighters in
South Australia found that reasons for not making official complaints about harassment
often included fear of criticism from others, believing the accusation would not be taken
seriously, believing that nothing would be done, or fear of retaliation from the perpetrator
(McLennan & Birch, 2006). Members may believe that their experience is not serious
enough to report, and within that culture some forms of interpersonal mistreatment may
seem trivial in a social environment where such occurrences are so widespread.
The distinctive characteristics of firefighting, combined with the extensive
amount of time firefighters spend together at the station and in trainings, allow a unique

5
workplace culture to flourish. Fire service culture has historically been super
masculinized and built around a “tough guy” image (Kitt, 2009). Attributes associated
with masculine ideals include physical and emotional strength, aggression, courage, and
independence (Thurnell-Read & Parker, 2008). Rookie members exposed to hazing or
pranks during their probationary period learn that this is a cultural norm that they must
experience to gain social acceptance from the group. Such behaviour is then perpetuated
as a norm to the “firefighter experience”.
The incidence of workplace aggression increases with the number of hours spent
at work (Harvey & Keashly, 2003). Career firefighters typically work on 12 or 24 hour
shifts with the same crew, and involvement in volunteer firefighting typically results in a
new social base for those involved in rural communities. Such frequent and intimate
contact facilitates the continuity of a strong organizational culture and the desire from
each member to become an accepted part of it.
Incivility
“I think it’s tradition in the fire brigade that what we now class as bullying has always
been teasing and it has been stuff which everybody is supposed to put up with.” (Archer,
1999, p. 98).
An important component to the culture of any organization is the level of civility
and incivility present in member relationships. Workplace incivility is a social interaction
characterized by disrespect and lack of consideration for others in a workgroup
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Incivility is differentiated from other forms of deviant
behaviour in the equivocal intent of the instigator to inflict harm on another individual.
Examples of such behaviour include but are not exclusive to: exclusion from group

6
activities, ignoring ideas, gossip, sarcasm, patronizing others, and aggressive
communication (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley,
2008; Martin & Hine, 2005). The inadvertent disrespect towards a colleague can initiate
the perpetuation of uncivil behaviour within the workgroup (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;
Baron & Neuman, 1996). When unaddressed, incivility can escalate into intentionally
harmful behaviour with increasing levels of deviance.
Women that experience workplace incivility are also likely to experience gender
harassment and sexualized harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lopez, Hodson, &
Roscigno, 2009). Power and dominance appear to be an influential factor in the
occurrence of workplace sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lopez et al., 2009).
This is very applicable to the fire service, which is a power-based hierarchy that is male-
dominated (Archer, 1999). The physical nature of a masculine work culture, such as that
present in the fire service, is shown to serve as a foundation for workplace incivility and
sexual harassment (Lopez et al., 2009).
Incivility can also occur between senior members and new recruits (Kitt, 2009;
Lopez et al., 2009). As with the occurrence of gendered harassment towards new female
recruits, male recruits can also experience harassment if existing members feel defensive
over the potential loss of a masculine job identity. The severity of mistreatment increases
when job security is an issue (Lopez et al., 2009), which can be a legitimate fear for older
members.
A culture of incivility can be perpetuated in the workplace by the attitudes
individuals hold about such interpersonal behaviour. If individuals in the workgroup
perceive uncivil behaviour as an acceptable way to treat their colleagues, such behaviour

7
becomes a norm in that environment. An individual can use three rationales as
“justification” when they have behaved rudely to a colleague: pressure, sensitivity, and
toughness (Leiter, Laschinger, Day, & Oore, 2011). The pressure rationale is used when
the individual feels that snapping at coworkers is acceptable during stressful situations.
Sensitivity is the belief that colleagues are just too sensitive and overreacting to what they
say. The toughness rationale is used as justification when the individual believes that he
or she has to be harsh to others in their workgroup (Leiter et al., 2011). These rationales
are especially applicable to the fire service, where high-pressure situations can be
encountered daily and where a culture of masculine toughness prevails (Archer, 1999). A
workplace culture will encourage incivility by accepting these rationales as legitimate
reasons for being rude or cruel towards others.
Workgroup Cohesion
Workgroup cohesion is defined as “the tendency for a group to stick together and
remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives” (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk,
2009, p. 174). This also includes commonalities in attitude, behaviour, and abilities
among members of a workgroup (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990). Cohesion is especially
important in the fire service, where firefighters are required to work as a team in
potentially stressful and life threatening situations (Varvel et al., 2007). High levels of
workgroup cohesion are associated with greater team satisfaction and intention to stay
with that team (Tekleab et al., 2009).
Fire departments strive for a high level of group cohesion among members, yet
several factors pertaining to the structure of a department often disrupt the level of
cohesion that could otherwise be achieved. In composite departments, career and

8
volunteer members dispute over which group is more experienced, competent, or
physically fit (USFA, 2007). Attitudes often vary between new and old members. Given
the hierarchal power-based structure of the fire service, power struggles can occur
between ranking officers, which can then disrupt those they manage.
Cliques are likely to form in an environment where members with different
backgrounds spend a great amount of time together. This is problematic in the fire service,
where teamwork and time together can establish cliques rather than togetherness.
Members that are new to the fire service or even to a new station often note cliques as a
barrier to feeling like an accepted part of the group (Kitt, 2009; USFA, 2007). Barriers
created by cliques are often seen as greater for members that are female and/or a minority
to the traditionally white male group. The formation of cliques and the negative impact it
has on the overall sense of team cohesiveness is incompatible with retention of members
in the fire service.
Impact of a Negative Workplace Culture
“They would set up little tests to see if he would rat out the culture and see how far they
could push him…what his tolerance was. He quit within six months and the crew were
just so proud of themselves because they drove him off the job.” (Kitt, 2009, p. 207).
A study investigating motives for turnover found that five out of the seven
reasons given for leaving the fire service relate to an adverse organizational culture.
These reasons included: conflicts in organization, organizational leadership created
adverse atmosphere, attitude of existing personnel to newcomers, criticism received from
officers/older members, and lack of camaraderie (USFA, 2007). The other two reasons
for leaving the service are related to the time commitment of being a volunteer firefighter.

9
The extensive amount of time spent on training and responding to calls is an inherent part
of the job and cannot be changed. What can be changed, however, is the social climate of
the organization. A civil and inviting work environment increases job satisfaction and
reduces turnover intention of members.
A study investigating differences in commitment between career and volunteer
firefighters found that volunteer firefighters had a significantly higher level of
commitment to their work group and their organization (Lee & Olshfski, 2002). Greater
commitment to work group and to the organization was related to higher levels of extra-
role behaviour in volunteers. Desire to remain with the organization was significantly
related to the level of commitment to the work group. Commitment is associated with
turnover; so to increase retention in volunteers, the organization they belong to and the
group they work with should be one that fosters commitment (Lee & Olshfski, 2002).
Organizational commitment has also shown a strong association in predicting employee
turnover in other professions, such as nursing (Wagner, 2007).
Hypotheses
The impact of workplace incivility has been extensively studied in healthcare
literature, however what is known about incivility in the fire service is based on
anecdotes from qualitative studies and government reports on firefighting. A culture of
incivility appears to exist in the fire service, and drawing from outcomes in healthcare
studies, it can be expected that an uncivil culture will increase turnover intent.
H1: Civility and incivility will each make a unique contribution to predicting turnover
intention. Incivility will be positively correlated with turnover intention while civility will
be negatively correlated with turnover intention.

10
Characteristics of fire service culture include a power-driven structure, tradition,
and a male-dominated workplace. Behaviours in this environment are similar to those of
other primarily male workforces, including emphasis on physicality, use of humor
(especially sexually-driven humor), and the desire to preserve a masculine culture. It can
therefore be predicted that reasons for behaving in an uncivil manner will relate to the
pervasiveness of such behaviours within that organizational setting. If the behaviour is
something everyone else does, individuals will be more inclined to act that way too.
H2: Rationales for uncivil behaviour will positively correlate with the experience of
incivility in the fire service. Each of the three rationales for uncivil behaviour will make a
unique contribution to predicting incivility.
The quality of interpersonal interactions will likely influence the level of
perceived cohesiveness among members in a workgroup. Individuals that are disrespected
or excluded by members of their workgroup will not feel like they are a part of that team.
When someone is socially isolated, they are likely to withdraw from that group.
H3: Civility and incivility will each make a unique contribution to predicting workgroup
cohesion. Incivility will be negatively correlated with workgroup cohesion, while civility
will be positively correlated with workgroup cohesion.
A gap in literature exists regarding culture in the fire service. The proposed
hypotheses have important implications on firefighter retention in the fire service. Given
the retention problem that exists primarily in volunteer fire departments, it is imperative
that the speculated culture of incivility in the fire service is investigated.

11
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from volunteer and composite fire departments in the
Annapolis Valley and South Shore of Nova Scotia. Volunteer departments include those
in which the membership is unpaid or paid-on-call. Career departments have membership
that is paid and assigned to shifts. Composite departments have membership that consists
of both career and volunteer firefighters. Seven different departments participated in this
study in addition to the Kings County Fire School, which trains firefighters from nearly
every department in the county. This resulted in the representation of 10 different
departments. Response rates ranged from 65-100% for each department, with a total of
199 surveys returned from the 213 distributed. Four surveys were excluded from the
analysis because they were incomplete.
The majority of respondents were male (87%), and 32% were a ranking officer.
There was a wide range in participant age (M = 37.68, SD = 13.23) and years of service
to their department (M = 10.85, SD = 11.68).
Procedure
Emails (Appendix A) were sent to the chiefs of fire departments in the Annapolis
Valley and South Shore of Nova Scotia inquiring about their interest to participate in a
study about fire service culture. The email provided basic information about
confidentiality, voluntary participation, an overview of the survey, and stated that a
profile of averaged results would be provided to the department if at least 10 firefighters
completed the survey. Profiles would only be provided if at least 10 members participated
to ensure the confidentiality of those that did complete a survey. The profile includes

12
average results for that department compared to the average results of all other
participating departments. Every department that was contacted agreed to participate in
the study. The Acadia University Research Ethics Board approved of this study prior to
the collection of any data.
Surveys were administered to department members during a training session,
meeting, or course. Consent forms (Appendix B) were distributed, explained, and
collected from participants before surveys were distributed. Surveys took approximately
15-20 minutes to complete and were collected by the researcher after completion. The
researcher provided a verbal debriefing of the study, and reminded participants that they
can use the contact information provided on the consent form if they have any questions
or concerns about the study. Surveys were sealed in provided envelopes by the participant
and were opened and scanned at the Centre for Organizational Research and
Development (COR&D) at Acadia University.
Measures
The level of workplace civility was assessed using the civility scale (Appendix C)
created for the CREW intervention program (Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, &
Belton, 2009). This highly reliable scale (α = 0.93) includes eight items that assess
various components to workplace civility, including: respect (“people treat each other
with respect in my work group”), cooperation, conflict resolution, coworker personal
interest, coworker reliability, antidiscrimination, value differences (“differences among
individuals are respected and valued in my work group”), and supervisor diversity
acceptance (Osatuke et al., 2009). These items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale
with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

13
General incivility was assessed using the widely used Workplace Incivility Scale
(Cortina et al., 2001). This scale asks participants to identify the frequency of seven
provided situations in which a supervisor or coworker behaved uncivilly towards them
during the past year (Appendix D). Examples include “made insulting or disrespectful
remarks to you”, and “physically threatened or intimidated you”. Frequency ratings are
on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = many times. Cortina et al.
(2001) demonstrated the internal consistency of this measure (α = 0.89). Later studies
confirmed the content and discriminant validity of the Workplace Incivility Scale (Lim,
Cortina, & Magley, 2008).
Workgroup cohesion was assessed using items derived from the “workgroup
cohesion” subcategory (Appendix E) of the Defense Equal Opportunity Organizational
Climate Survey (DEOCS). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree
or disagree with statements on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include “my work group works
well together as a team” and “members of my work group trust each other.” A high
overall score indicates a high level of workgroup cohesion. Alpha coefficient estimates
based off individual level data (α = 0.92) and unit data (α = 0.97) demonstrate the high
reliability of this measure (Walsh, Matthews, Tuller, Parks, & McDonald, 2010).
Retention outcome was measured using a scale of turnover intentions (Appendix
F). Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham’s (1999) turnover intention scale includes four items
rated on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. Items include “I am thinking about leaving this organization” and “I don’t

14
plan to be in this organization much longer.” Kelloway et al. (1999) obtained high
internal consistency in both portions of their study (Time 1 α = 0.92, Time 2 α = 0.93).
Rudeness rationales (Appendix G) were assessed using the recently developed
Rudeness Rationales Scale (Leiter et al., 2011). This measure asks participants to rate
how often they experience certain work related feelings on a seven point Likert scale with
responses ranging from 0 = never to 6 = daily. These feelings are categorized into three
types of rationalizations: pressure (e.g. “when time is tight I tend to get abrupt with
people”), sensitivity (e.g. “I work with people whose feelings are easily hurt”), and
toughness (e.g. “a tough response is necessary when people try to manipulate me”).
Initial evaluation of this measure has demonstrated high internal reliability (α = 0.83).
Results
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS on a password protected
laptop at COR&D. The first hypothesis was analyzed using a stepwise regression with
civility and incivility as predictor variables and turnover intention as the dependent
variable. Hypothesis 2 investigated the relationship of each rudeness rationale in a
stepwise regression with incivility as the dependent variable. The third hypothesis was
also analyzed using a stepwise regression, with civility and incivility as predictor
variables, and workgroup cohesion as the dependent variable. Given the exploratory
nature of this study, stepwise regressions were used to determine the unique contributions
of each predictor. Stepwise regressions were used so the partial correlations could be
obtained from variables that were excluded from the analysis. A stepwise regression
enters variables with the highest correlation to the dependent variable first, followed by
variables with the next highest correlation in each subsequent step.

15
Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for each variable. The
Cronbach alpha for each variable is listed along the main diagonal. Internal consistencies
were high for measures of civility, incivility, workgroup cohesion, and turnover intention
(Table 1). Reliability for the three Rudeness Rationales subscales (Table 1) was lower
than the initial evaluation of this measure (Leiter et al., in review). Although age and
years of service were highly correlated with each other, r(195)=.57, p<.001, neither
variable had a significant correlation with any of the dependent variables. Since age and
years of service were not correlated with the dependent variables, they were not entered
into the regression analyses.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Civility 3.88 0.64 .88
2. Incivility 1.03 0.87 -.51** .91
3. Pressure 1.88 0.96 -.11 .34** .55
4. Sensitivity 1.93 1.03 -.18** .38** .33** .53
5. Toughness 2.09 1.18 -.05 .32** .24** .48** .69
6. Workgroup Cohesion 4.21 0.66 .72** -.44** -.15* -.11 -.07 .81
7. Turnover Intention 1.88 0.91 -.46** .43** .20* .21** .05 -.40** .89
N=195, *p<.05, ** p<.01, Cronbach alpha on main diagonal.
As hypothesized, incivility was positively correlated with turnover intention,
r(195)=.43, p<.001, and civility was negatively correlated with turnover intention,
r(195)=-.46, p<.001. A stepwise regression tested whether workplace incivility and
workplace civility would make a unique contribution to predicting turnover intention.

16
Civility was entered on the first step of the regression because it had a stronger
correlation with turnover intention than incivility did. Both civility and incivility were
entered on the second step of the regression, and the unique contribution of each variable
in predicting turnover intention was analyzed. The regression found that incivility made a
significant unique contribution beyond the influence of civility alone (Table 2) by
increasing R2
by .052 (F(1,191)=13.42, p<.001), resulting in an adjusted R2
= .256
(F(2,189)=33.88, p<.001).
Table 2
Unique contribution of civility and incivility in predicting turnover intention.
Predictor β t Significance
Civility -.33 -4.48 <.001
Incivility .27 3.66 <.001
N=195
As expected, the pressure, sensitivity, and toughness rationales were positively
correlated with workplace incivility (Table 1). Sensitivity was entered into the stepwise
regression first because it was the rationale that was most highly correlated with
workplace incivility. The second step of the regression included both sensitivity and
pressure, which was the variable with the next highest correlation to turnover intention.
All three variables were included on the last step of the regression. The regression
analysis found that each rationale uniquely contributed to the prediction of incivility
(Table 3) with an adjusted R2
= .204 (F(3,192)=17.63, p<.001), thus confirming the second
hypothesis.

17
Table 3
Contribution of each rudeness rationale in predicting workplace incivility.
Sensitivity .22 2.94 .004
Pressure .23 3.38 .001
Toughness .17 2.31 .022
N=195
As expected, incivility was negatively correlated with workgroup cohesion,
r(195)=-.44, p<.001, while civility was positively correlated with workgroup cohesion,
r(195)=.72, p<.001. Workgroup cohesion was negatively correlated to turnover intention,
r(195)=-.40, p<.001, as predicted in hypothesis three. Contrary to the third hypothesis,
incivility was not a unique predictor of workgroup cohesion (Table 4). Civility was the
only variable that uniquely contributed to the regression of workgroup cohesion R2
=.52
(F(1,194)=211.32, p<.001).
Table 4
Significance of included and excluded variables on workgroup cohesion.
Civility -.72 14.54 <.001
Excluded Partial
Incivility -.10 -1.67 .097 -.12
N=195

18
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of civility and incivility
on workgroup cohesion and turnover intention in members of the fire service. A
mechanism for the prediction of workplace incivility was proposed using the Rudeness
Rationales scale (Leiter et al., 2011). Fire service culture from an interpersonal
relationship perspective was explored to help fill the literature gap on retention issues in
the volunteer fire service.
Both civility and incivility were unique predictors of turnover intention, thus
supporting Hypothesis 1. Civility had a significant negative correlation with turnover
intention, meaning that higher levels of positive interpersonal interactions related to a
reduced likelihood to want to leave the organization. Incivility was positively correlated
with turnover intention, meaning that increased incidence of uncivil interactions with
coworkers related to an increased likelihood to plan on leaving the department. This is
consistent with previous literature on the relationship between incivility and
organizational withdrawal behaviour (Cortina et al., 2001).
The sensitivity, pressure, and toughness rationale each provided a unique
contribution to the prediction of workplace incivility, which supports the second
hypothesis. The positive correlation between each rationale and incivility indicates that
increased frequency in rationale usage relates to increased incidence of incivility in the
workgroup. This relationship is consistent with Leiter et al.’s (2011) preliminary
investigation on the use of these rationales in predicting workplace incivility.
Similar to the relationship with turnover intention, both civility and incivility were
significantly related to workgroup cohesion. Civility had a very strong positive

19
correlation, while incivility had a negative correlation with workgroup cohesion.
Contrary to the hypothesis, the stepwise regression revealed that only civility uniquely
predicted the level of workgroup cohesion. Positive social interactions with ones
workgroup, as measured by the civility scale, predicted higher levels of perceived
cohesiveness within ones workgroup. High levels of workgroup cohesion were related to
lower levels of turnover intention, which is consistent with previous studies making the
same comparison (Odom et al., 1990).
The results of this study, in conjunction with parallel research in different
organizational settings, demonstrate the importance of positive workplace relationships in
member retention. A workplace culture that promotes respect and cooperation among
team members will foster a welcoming environment that members would want to stay a
part of. Although the hypotheses were supported, there are some limitations in the
interpretation of results.
Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of this study is the method used to survey firefighters.
Administering the survey during a training or meeting yielded a remarkable response rate,
however such a sample has potential biases. It is possible that members who attend
meetings and trainings perceive their workgroup more positively than members that do
not attend meetings and trainings regularly. Since these were all volunteer departments,
attendance at every meeting or training is not mandatory. Previous research has identified
organizational withdrawal behaviour as a consequence of workplace incivility (Cortina et
al., 2001). If such a relationship applies to this sample, the overall level of incivility may

20
be higher than what was determined from firefighters that have not withdrawn from their
organization.
A related limitation is that only current firefighters were surveyed. Since
volunteers are not dependent on firefighting for income, they would presumably be more
likely to resign if they were dissatisfied with aspects of the job. Future research should
also include comparisons between volunteer and career firefighters on the dimensions of
civility, incivility, workgroup cohesion, and turnover intention. It would also be
informative to find a way to contact resigned firefighters to see if an adverse culture had a
role in their decision to resign.
Conclusions drawn in the second hypothesis also have some limitations. The
Cronbach alphas for each Rudeness Rationale subscale were low, indicating that those
items may not have reliably measured rationales for incivility in this sample. Preliminary
research using the Rudeness Rationale measure indicated high reliability in healthcare
settings (Leiter et al., under review), but such results were not replicated in this study.
Since the internal consistencies for each subscale were so low, it is questionable whether
the three rationales were accurately measured in this sample.
Conclusion
Results from this study indicate a strong predictive relationship between the
quality of interpersonal relationships and turnover intention in the fire service. Further
research needs to be conducted in this area, since this is one of the first to empirically
evaluate whether a culture of incivility is related to the retention issues observed in the
fire service. This promising area of research should be expanded to include career
firefighters in the future. Inclusion of variables that assess other aspects of organizational

21
culture will help provide a greater understanding of how turnover may be reduced in the
fire service.

22
References
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military organisation.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(1), 94-105.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior,
22, 161-173.
Beaton, R. D., & Murphy, S. A. (1993). Sources of occupational stress among
firefighter/EMTs and firefighter/paramedics and correlations with job-related
outcomes. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 8(2), 140-149.
Brough, P. (2004). Comparing the influence of traumatic and organizational stressors on
the psychological health of police, fire, and ambulance officers. International
Journal of Stress Management, 11(3), 227-244.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,
64-80.
Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace:
Risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality,
31(8), 807-814.
Kales, S. N., Soteriades, E. S., Christophi, C. A., & Christiani, D. C. (2007). Emergency
duties and deaths from heart disease among firefighters in the United States. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 356(12), 1207-1215.

23
Karter, M. J., & Stein, G. P. (2010). U.S. fire department profile through 2009. Quincy,
MA: National Fire Protection Association. Retrieved September 29, 2011, from
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=15&URL=Research.
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction
of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 4(4), 337-346.
Kessler, S. R., Spector, P. E., Change, C.-H., & Parr, A. D. (2008). Organizational
violence and aggression: Development of the three-factor Violence Climate
Survey. Work & Stress 22, 108-124.
Kitt, L. R. (2009). Breaking the silence: Insights into the impact of being a firefighter on
men’s mental health (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/15226
Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment,
incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes.
Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 302-311.
Lee, S.-H., & Olshfski, D. (2002). An examination of the variations in the nature of
employee commitment: The case of paid and volunteer firefighters. International
Review of Public Administration, 7(1), 29-38.
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. (2011). Rudeness rationales:
Whatever were they thinking? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The
interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496.

24
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility:
Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95
107.
Lopez, S. H., Hodson, R., & Roscigno, V. J. (2009). Power, status, and abuse at work:
General and sexual harassment compared. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 3-27.
Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil
workplace behavior questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
10(4), 477-490.
McLennan, J., & Birch, A. (2006). Survey of South Australian Country Fire Service
Women Volunteers (South Australian Country Fire Service Report No. 2006:1).
Retrieved from www.aemvf.org.au/site/_content/resource/00000109
docsource.pdf
Murphy, J. K., & Murphy, B. L. (2010, March). Legal and psychological effects of
workplace harassment. Fire Engineering 163(3). Retrieved from
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-163/issue
3/departments/Fire_Service_Court/legal-and-psychological-effects-of-workplace
harassment.html
Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment,
satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14(2),
157-169.
Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., & Belton, L. (2009). Civility,
Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization

25
development intervention at Veterans Health Administration. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 45(3), 384-410.
Schat, A. C. H. (2004). In praise of intolerance: Investigating the effects of organizational
tolerance on the incidence and consequences of workplace aggression
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Guelph, Ontario.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team
conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group &
Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205.
Thurnell-Read, T., & Parker, A. (2008). Men, masculinities and firefighting:
Occupational identity, shop-floor culture and organizational change. Emotion,
Space and Society, 1, 127-134.
U.S. Fire Administration. (2007). Retention and recruitment for the volunteer emergency
services (USFA Publication No. FA-310). Retrieved from
www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa-310.pdf
Varvel, S. J., He, Y., Shannon, J. K., Tager, D., Bledman, R. A., Chaichanasakul, A., …
Mallinckrodt, B. (2007). Multidimensional, threshold effects of social support in
firefighters: Is more support invariably better? Journal of Counseling Psychology,
54(4), 458-465.
Wagner, C. M. (2007). Organizational commitment as a predictor variable in nursing
turnover research: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60, 235-247.
Walsh, B. M., Matthews, R. A., Tuller, M. D., Parks, K. M. & Mcdonald, D. P. (2010). A
multilevel model of the effects of equal opportunity climate on job satisfaction in
the military. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 191-207.

26
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational
change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group & Organization
Management, 25(2), 132-153.
Willing, L. (2011, October 17). Firehouse gunman prank: Would you have stopped it?
FireRecruit.com. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from
http://www.firerecruit.com/articles/1167517 Firehouse-gunman-prank-Would
you-have-stopped-it

27
Appendix A
Fire Service Study Information Email
Interested in contributing your knowledge and experience to an exciting study on
firefighting? Here’s your chance.
As a firefighter, I can fully appreciate the unique culture that exists in the fire
service. Research in other organizations has shown the significant influence culture has
on employee well-being and retention outcomes, however no such studies have been
conducted in the fire service. Given the high turnover rates in many volunteer and even
some career departments, it is crucial that we explore this dimension to the firefighting
experience. Firefighting is a profession unlike any other; therefore the distinct facets of
the culture we live must be explored to find ways of improving firefighter retention.
In order to conduct this research, we need a large number of firefighters to
complete a 15-minute survey about their everyday experiences and behaviours at the fire
hall. Ideally, this survey would be given during a training, meeting, or shift where most
members are present. I will be there to explain the study, what participation involves, and
answer any questions firefighters may have.
The survey data will be used as part of my honours thesis, in addition to a paper
intended for publication in a scientific journal and firefighting periodical. All published
information will not identify your members or department in any way.
If at least 10 firefighters in your department take part in this study, we can provide
you with a profile of how your department scored compared to the average of other
participating departments. This profile may benefit your department by providing you
with information on perceived levels of teamwork, climate of social relations, levels of

28
firefighter satisfaction, and whether there is any intent to leave. As with any form of
publication or profiling resulting from this study, data that may identify a member or
department will not be included.
If interested in including your department in this study, or if you have any
questions about this study, please contact Rachel Whitney (rachel.whitney@acadiau.ca)
or my supervisor Dr. Michael P. Leiter at (michael.leiter@acadiau.ca).
About Us:
Rachel L. Whitney is an undergraduate student at Acadia University and a Research
Assistant at the Centre for Organizational Research & Development (COR&D). She is
working towards a B.Sc. with honours in psychology and B.Sc. in biology. Combining
her interests in organizational psychology and firefighting, Rachel is currently writing her
honours thesis on culture in the fire service.
Dr. Michael P. Leiter, Ph.D. is the director of COR&D, former Vice President
Academic, and Professor of Psychology at Acadia University. A registered Psychologist,
he has been involved in organizational psychology for nearly twenty years. He has
conducted extensive research on burnout in human service organizations and has
contributed to extending the concept to other occupational sectors. He maintains active
collaborations with colleagues in Europe, the USA, and Canada with whom he has
published in journals, scholarly books, and the popular press.

29
Appendix B
Research Consent Form
Fire Service Culture Study
Researchers:
Rachel L. Whitney, Acadia University Dr. Michael P. Leiter, Acadia University
Honours Student Supervisor
rachel.whitney@acadiau.ca michael.leiter@acadiau.ca
(902) 670-4212 (902) 585-1671
Purpose of Research
Research on firefighting has focused on the impact of exposure to traumatic incidents,
while ignoring the elements of fire department culture and how it can impact members.
Studies in other workplace settings have revealed the significant influence culture and
social interactions has on well-being and organizational outcomes. This project aims to
profile the behaviour of firefighters, and the impact such behaviour has on fire
departments and its members.
What Will the Research Involve?
If you chose to participate in this study, you will be given a survey that takes
approximately 15 minutes to complete. This survey will ask questions about basic
demographics, experiences you have had with team members, and how you feel about
your involvement in the fire service. The information you provide will remain
confidential. You must be 18 years or older to participate in this study.

30
Potential Harms
There are no anticipated harms associated with participation in this study. Some
participants may feel uncomfortable revealing personal information that could potentially
identify who they are. You will be asked to identify which fire department you are
currently a member of, however your individual responses will not be revealed to anyone
in your organization and your department will not be named in any publication. Please
note that only the researchers will have access to surveys. Information obtained from
surveys will only be reported in a non-identifiable manner to ensure confidentiality of all
participants and their departments.
Potential Benefits
This research provides no known direct benefits to you as a result of your participation. If
interested, a copy of the results can be sent to you when this study is completed.
How Will Privacy Be Protected?
After the allotted time, you will seal your survey in the provided envelope whether you
chose to complete it or not. Envelopes will only be opened at Acadia University and
survey results will be entered on a password-protected computer by one of the listed
researchers. Only the researchers will have access to this data. Surveys will be stored in a
locked file cabinet at Acadia University and will be destroyed upon completion of this
project. Individual responses will not be reported, and information that discloses your
identity or that of your department will not be published.

31
Publication
This research is being conducted with the intention of publication in a scientific journal in
addition to the student researcher’s honours thesis. You and your department will not be
identified in any way in any publication.
Participation
The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. If you chose to participate,
you can withdraw at any time without negative consequence. By consenting to participate,
you have not waived any rights to legal assistance if a research-related harm were to
occur.
Contacts for Study Questions or Problems
If you would like to contact the researchers regarding this study, feel free to call or email
either one of us through the contact info provided at the beginning of this form. For
questions regarding your rights as a participant or the conduct of this study, contact the
Acadia University Research Ethics Board at (902) 585-1498, or Dr. Stephen Maitzen,
REB Chair, at smaitzen@acadiau.ca.
Participant Consent
I have read and the Consent Form and fully understand the nature of this research and
what my participation entails. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
Participant Name
(Print)________________________________________________________
Participant Signature____________________________________________
Date:____________________

32
If you’re interested in receiving the results of this study, please include your email, or any
other form of contact if you do not have email, in the space below.
Email:________________________________________________

33
Appendix C
Civility Scale (Osatuke et al., 2009)
Please indicate the degree of your agreement or
disagreement with each statement.
StronglyDisagree
Disagree
NeitherAgree
norDisagree
Agree
StronglyAgree
People treat each other with respect in my
work group     
A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in
my work group     
Disputes or conflicts are resolved fairly in my
The people I work with take a personal interest
in me     
The people I work with can be relied on when I
need help     
This organization does not tolerate
discrimination     
Differences among individuals are respected
and valued in my work group     
Managers/Supervisors/Team leaders work well
with employees of different backgrounds in my

34
Appendix D
Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001)
During the past year, while a member of
your department, have you been in a
situation where any of your superiors or
coworkers:
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
ManyTimes
Put you down or was condescending to you?     
Paid little attention to your statement or
showed little interest in your opinion?     
Made demeaning or derogatory remarks
about you?     
Addressed you in unprofessional terms,
either publicly or privately?     
Ignored or excluded you from professional
camaraderie?     
Doubted your judgement on a matter over
which you have responsibility?     
Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a
discussion of personal matters?     

35
Appendix E
DEOCS: Workgroup Cohesion (Walsh et al., 2010)
Please indicate the degree of your agreement
or disagreement with each statement.
TotallyDisagree
ModeratelyDisagree
NeitherAgree
norDisagree
ModeratelyAgree
TotallyAgree
My work group works well together as a
team.     
Members of my work group pull together to
get the job done.     
Members of my work group really care about
each other.     
Members of my work group trust each other.     

36
Appendix F
Turnover Intentions Scale (Kelloway et al., 1999)
Please indicate the degree of your
agreement or disagreement with each
statement.
StronglyDisagree
Disagree
NeitherAgree
norDisagree
Agree
StronglyAgree
I am thinking about leaving this
organization.     
I am planning to look for a new job.     
I intend to ask people about new job
opportunities.     
I don’t plan to be in this organization much
longer.     

37
Appendix G
Rudeness Rationales (Leiter et al., 2011)
Please indicate how often, if ever,
you have experienced these work
related feelings.
Never
Sporadically
Afewtimesayearorless
NowandThen
Onceamonthorless
Regularly
Afewtimesamonth
Often
Onceaweek
VeryOften
Afewtimesaweek
Daily
When time is tight, I tend to get
abrupt with people       
I am abrupt to others when I feel
stressed.       
People take offense when they
misinterpret my actions.       
I work with people whose feelings
are easily hurt.       
Regardless of the pressure, I am
sensitive to the feelings of everyone
at work.       
I am impatient with how easily other
people can take offense.       
I have to stop others from taking
advantage of me.       
It is important to respond firmly       

38
when people are being annoying.
A tough response is necessary when
people try to manipulate me.       

Fire Service Culture RW

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Fire Service Culture RW

Similar to Fire Service Culture RW (20)

Fire Service Culture RW