{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0244815668202765, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006336405529953917, 'mean_word_length': 5.407749077490775, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Workplace civility training: An antidote to traditional sexual harassment training

Medeiros and Griffith (2019) note that there are many issues with sexual harassment training that are unique and, therefore, represent challenges when designing and delivering that type of training. In this commentary, we argue that workplace civility training is well-suited to overcome many of those challenges noted by Medeiros and Griffith and represents an effective approach to not only preventing sexual harassment, but also to changing the culture of harassment within an organization and, more specifically, a workgroup. Although there are several models of civility training (e.g., Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workforce (CREW); Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009), in general, Workplace Civility Training (WCT) focuses on enhancing respect among all members of a workgroup. Such training begins by having a particular workgroup define what it means to treat each member within that workgroup with respect and dignity. Importantly, different workgroups may derive different definitions of what it means to treat everyone in their work unit with respect. Because of that, workplace civility is defined at the local level, or within the work unit. In other words, civility is not defined by leaders of an organization, although some components of civility may be shared among all workgroups. Instead, each workgroup decides, for themselves, what it means to treat each other with respect. Additionally, each workgroup decides, for themselves, the boundaries that exist for those respectful behaviors and how to hold each other accountable when those boundaries are crossed. Clearly, such behaviors and boundaries could include what constitutes appropriate behavior and language involving sexual innuendo and connotations in the workplace. WCT should also be led by a trained external facilitator who is not only well-versed in facilitating discussion but also knowledgeable about discrimination and other employment laws. A trained facilitator can help ensure that agreed-upon behaviors are not violating anti-discrimination laws (e.g., it is not okay to only hire applicants under 40, regardless of whether the workgroup wants to do so), as well as ensure that such discussion is confidential and will not be used against anyone in the workgroup by upper management. Moreover, as noted by Medeiros and Griffith (2019), training is much more effective when led by external trainers as opposed to peers (Anderson & Whiston, 2005). By agreeing on what constitutes respectful behavior as well as how they will hold each other accountable, employees are empowered to police themselves when a workplace behavior crosses, or even approaches, an agreed-upon boundary. Because all members of a workgroup are involved in determining those definitions and boundaries, members of the workgroup may also intervene when they witness inappropriate behaviors targeted toward others in their workgroup. In this way, the outcomes of a WCT can address early perceptions of sexual harassment and therefore generate a discussion about the questionable behavior before it escalates into something far more serious. Incorporating WCT into the workplace also has many advantages over traditional sexual harassment training. Medeiros and Griffith (2019) noted that most employment training should create opportunities to practice and apply the learned skills in the work environment