Cyber Incivility and its impact

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356420103
Workplace Incivility and its Socio-demographic Determinants in India
Article in International Journal of Conflict Management · November 2021
DOI: 10.1108/IJCMA-02-2021-0023
CITATION
1
READS
222
3 authors, including:
Madhu Lata
Indian Institute of Technology Patna
8 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Mantasha Firoz
Goa Institute of Management
8 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mantasha Firoz on 09 January 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. Workplace incivility and its
socio-demographic
determinants in India
Richa Chaudhary, Madhu Lata and Mantasha Firoz
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to present an empirical account of the prevalence and socio-
demographic determinants of workplace incivility (experienced and instigated) in the Indian workplace.
Design/methodology/approach – The study sample consisted of 1,133 employees working in service
organizations mainly banks, hotels, academic institutions and information technology firms. The authors
tested the proposed model on the same set of respondents in two different studies. The phenomenon of
instigated incivility and its determinants were examined in Study 1, while Study 2 looked at experienced
incivility and its antecedents. The data were analyzed using univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistical
operations in SPSS 24.
Findings – The results of both studies revealed that employees’ age, gender, educational qualification,
position, nature of the organization, type of the organization and duration of working hours significantly
predict the onset of workplace incivility. Nevertheless, marital status and tenure failed to predict the
manifestation of uncivil behaviors in the organization.
Research limitations/implications – The scope of this study was restricted to the Indian service
sector with a focus on only two types of workplace incivility (instigated and experienced).
Practical implications – The managers are advised to be mindful of employees’ socio-demographic
differences while devising interventions to tackle the issues of uncivil acts at work.
Originality/value – This study is one of the pioneer attempts to explore the impact of socio-demographic
factors on employees’ tendency to instigate and experience incivility at work in India. In doing so, the study
enriches the scant literature on workplace incivility by establishing the role of individual differences in
determining the occurrence of incivility in the workplace.
Keywords Workplace incivility, Experienced incivility, Instigated incivility,
Socio-demographic factors, Deviant behaviors
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
While the high-intensity negative workplace behaviors such as workplace bullying,
workplace aggression and abusive supervision, have been studied extensively, low-intensity
negative behaviors like workplace incivility have become a topic of research only recently
(Schilpzand et al., 2016). Workplace incivility refers to “a low-intensity deviant workplace
Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and
with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest: All of the study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the
study.
Workplace
incivility
Received 9 February 2021
Revised 27 September 2021
7 November 2021
Accepted 16 November 2021
International Journal of Conflict
Management
© EmeraldPublishingLimited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/IJCMA-02-2021-0023
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1044-4068.htm

3. behavior with an ambiguous intent to harm the target in violation of workplace norms for
mutual respect” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Making insulting remarks about
someone, addressing someone in unprofessional terms either publicly or privately, making
jokes at someone’s expense, interrupting or speaking over someone are some of the
examples of incivility at work (Cortina et al., 2001). The incidents of uncivil behaviors at
the workplace are mounting globally and so are its adverse effects at each level of the
organization (Cortina, 2008). It is disturbing to note the growing incidences of workplace
incivility in Asian countries including India, which used to be the land of non-violence and
peace in the pre-modern era (Ghosh, 2017). Rising incivility is costing Indian companies in
terms of reduced productivity, and consequently, forcing Indian managers to look for ways
to control and minimize uncivil behaviors at work (Mehra, 2011). Nevertheless, little
academic attention has been paid to uncover the prevalence of discourteous behaviors at
work in Asian countries, in general, and India, in particular. It is evident from the literature
that most of the research on workplace incivility has come from the developed Western
nations specifically the USA, Canada and the UK (Schilpzand et al., 2016). However, national
culture has been identified to shape the behavioral expectations and norms, and hence, the
findings from developed Western context may not be generalized to developing countries of
the world. It is believed that because of vast differences in the socialization process and
socio-cultural set-up, the nature, antecedents and consequences of workplace incivility
might differ in Asian countries from that in the Western world (Ghosh, 2017). Culture shapes
both the conceptualizations of power as personalized versus socialized and the relationship
between power and status (Torelli et al., 2020). The individualistic culture of the Western
world makes people describe themselves more in terms of their unique characteristics such
as personality traits. They have an independent view of themselves and see themselves as
separate from others. Their self-concept is centered on “I” (Hofstede, 1980; Markus and
Kitayama, 1991). On the other hand, people from collectivist cultures describe themselves
more in terms of their interpersonal relationships and their roles in the family or society.
They have an interdependent view of themselves and see themselves as connected to others.
Collectivist society gives more importance to maintaining harmony in interpersonal
relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Markus and Kitayama, 1991). As a result, the instigation or
perception of incivility is likely to differ significantly among employees from these two
distinct social backgrounds. What is perceived as uncivil behavior in the individualistic
society may not be seen as a discourteous act in the collectivist culture (Montgomery et al.,
2004). Further, individuals in collectivistic societies have been found to be more tolerant of
low-intensity discourteous behaviors (Rousseau et al., 2008; Jelavic et al., 2021) and resilient
to the negative effects of incivility (Welbourne et al., 2015).
Further, power distance characteristics of national culture, which refers to the degree to
which people accept hierarchical differences and unequal distribution of power (Hofstede,
1980; Markus and Kitayama, 1991), has been identified to affect the individuals’ perceptions
of and reactions to incivility (Moon et al., 2020) . As compared to low power distance
cultures, individuals in high power distance societies tend to be more accepting of workplace
mistreatments and respond less negatively to abuses in the workplace, especially from the
people in the position of power (Loh et al., 2021). Display of uncivil behaviors by powerful
individuals to the powerless can be more commonly observed in high power distance
countries because of power differences in the workplace (French and Raven, 1959). In
addition, societal differences in terms of tightness and looseness of social norms may also
influence the way individuals experience and retort to incivility (Moon and Sanchez-
Rodriguez, 2021). Asian countries (China, India, Japan, Singapore, etc.) have a tight culture
where social norms are strong and clearly defined, while the USA and many European
IJCMA

4. countries have a loose culture characterized by weak social norms accompanied by low
tolerance for deviation from the norms (Gelfand et al., 2006). Tight societies have been found
to be more (less) personally acceptable of incivility from powerholders (powerless
individuals) (Moon and Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2021).
Thus, workplace incivility (and behavioral science in general) needs a greater number of
studies conducted on non-WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic)
samples (Henrich et al., 2010) to determine what behavior patterns can be generalized to the
human beings and what are culture-specific. It is evident from the literature that incivility
scholars have mainly focused on attitudinal, behavioral and organizational consequences of
workplace incivility (Schilpzand et al., 2016). The socio-demographic factors which have
been recognized to play a significant role in shaping employees’ workplace behaviors (Henle,
2005) have rarely been studied in relation to workplace incivility. Some studies have
indicated demographic differences in the frequency with which uncivil behaviors
are experienced, but they have mostly treated these variables as controls, and hence, no
specific hypotheses were proposed regarding the impact of these variables on incivility, and
as a result, the findings were rarely discussed. Further, these studies on incivility have
largely looked at gender differences and neglected other important socio-demographic
differences (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina et al., 2002). Also, the available studies are limited in
terms of their focus on just one type of incivility from a single source. Thus, clearly, there is
a scarcity of studies devoted exclusively to detailed examination of the impact of socio-
demographic attributes on workplace incivility.
In an attempt to address the above gaps, using a sample of employees from diverse
nature of organizations in India, the present study aims to:
explore the nature and prevalence of two forms of incivility: experienced and
instigated in Indian workplace; and
identify the socio-demographic factors that may contribute to a better
understanding of the phenomenon of workplace incivility.
Specifically, this paper examines the linkage of gender, age, education, marital status,
tenure, position, number of working hours, nature of the organization and type of
organization with instigated incivility and experienced incivility in the Indian service sector,
particularly academics, banking, information technology (IT) and hotel industries. The
study focuses on incivility instigated toward and experienced from supervisor(s) and
colleague(s).
This research aims to advance the existing literature in two major ways. First, the
exploration of the nature and prevalence of workplace incivility in India with a special focus
on its association with socio-demographic and contextual factors will contribute to a limited
body of knowledge on low-intensity negative behaviors in Asian societies. Second, by
identifying the socio-demographic determinants of incivility, this study will allow
organizations to distinguish the group of people, who, because of certain characteristics, are
either at the greater risk of experiencing uncivil behaviors or are more predisposed to
instigate incivility at work. The understanding of the factors that may contribute to
workplace incivility will help practitioners more effectively prevent, mitigate and control its
harmful consequences for the individuals, groups and organizations.
Conceptual framework and study hypotheses
Socio-demographic characteristics and workplace incivility
We borrow from the broad domain of literature on high-intensity counterproductive
behaviors (Henle, 2005; Sackett et al., 2006) and limited available research on workplace
Workplace
incivility

5. incivility (Cortina et al., 2001; Young et al., 2021) that suggest a possible linkage between
socio-demographics and negative behaviors at work to serve as a foundation for our
hypotheses.
Gender
Cultural norms and expectations may accord higher status to certain identity groups over
others. Such power bases in organizations may be rooted in gender, hierarchical position,
etc. (Cortina et al., 2001). As per the social power theory (French and Raven, 1959), the
members of socially dominant groups may engage in uncivil acts toward the minority group
members such as women in a patriarchal society like India to exercise control and maintain
power differences (Cortina, 2008). Incivility may provide a mechanism to the dominant
group members to assert power, retain status quo and further marginalize minority groups
(Young et al., 2021). Further, as per the selective incivility theory of Cortina et al. (2013),
uncivil behaviors might act as a hidden modern indicator of discrimination against
marginalized groups in the organization and society making them experience higher
incivility. Thus, we expect that in Indian society, females are more likely to experience
incivility in the workplace because of deep-rooted gender role stereotypes.
Traditionally, women were assigned to the private (home) sphere because of their
domestic responsibilities, while workplace was considered to be men’s arena, as they were
the bread earners. Although biases against the marginalized groups may have diminished
over years, these prejudices may still exist and manifest as selective incivility. Because of
these gender stereotypes, male employees in Asian organizations might be subconsciously
reluctant to accept females as their bosses and inclined to act in a discourteous manner with
their female supervisors (Ghosh, 2017; Kang and Rowley, 2005). In South Asian cultures,
men may use uncivil behaviors toward women as a means to preserve the culture of
patriarchy and resist their entry in the workforce (Young et al., 2021).
Based on the theory of social power (French and Raven, 1959), we expect that males
being the member of the dominant group in Indian societal structure would instigate higher
levels of incivility than women. Instigators are likely to choose low power and weak
individuals as their targets who cannot defend themselves or are less likely to report.
Women, as the member of marginalized group, may encourage instigators because of their
tendency to eternalize their victimization by enduring disrespectful acts (Ghosh, 2017; Kang
and Rowley, 2005; Young et al., 2021). Thus, women are more likely to be the targets of
incivility but reluctant to report it, whereas men because of lower tolerance for discourteous
acts shaped through their perceived higher status in the society relative to women may
report higher incidents of uncivil behaviors.
A couple of studies on gender and workplace incivility reveal contradictory findings.
Some studies reported higher incidents of uncivil behaviors among men, while others
showed a greater prevalence of discourteous behavior among women in the workplace. For
instance, Lim and Lee (2011) in their study on employees from Singapore found that male
employees experienced higher incivility than their female counterparts. On the other hand,
Cortina et al. (2001) found greater incidents of experienced incivility among females than
males in a male-dominated profession in the USA. Again in 2013, Cortina et al. found that
women were at greater risk of uncivil treatment than men in public sector organizations.
Gabriel et al. (2018) also reported an interesting finding that agentic women experienced
higher uncivil encounters from other women than men in the USA. Young et al. (2021)
reported that women were more likely than men to be the victim of incivility in public and
non-profit organizations in Pakistan. Thus, findings with regard to the association of gender
with incivility appear to be mixed. However, as the national culture shapes behavioral
IJCMA

6. expectations and norms, the above findings with regard to gender from varied cultures may
not be generalized to Indian society characterized by deep-rooted patriarchy (Ghosh, 2017)
and relatively low female labor force participation [1]. Going by our original arguments, we
hypothesize the following:
H1a. Male employees would instigate more uncivil acts toward their supervisor(s) and
colleague(s) than their female counterparts.
H1b. Female employees would experience more incivility from their supervisor(s) and
colleague(s) than their male counterparts.
Nature and type of organization
Apart from national culture, industry and organizational culture have also been identified to
significantly influence how individuals perceive and respond to workplace incivility (Moon
et al., 2021; Jelavic et al., 2021; Schilpzand et al., 2016). Because of significant differences in
the work culture of public and private sectors, the nature and frequency of workplace
incivility in public organizations are likely to be different from that in private firms. The
private organizations are motivated by profit motive and, as a result, have a more
competitive work culture compared to that in the public firms. In contrast to the public
sector, there exists a trend of long working hours usually without weekends in private
sector. Long work hours and often unhealthy competition in the private firms may interfere
with employees’ ability to achieve desired personal goals and, hence, lead to frustration
(Miller, 1941). As per frustration-aggression hypothesis (Miller, 1941), employees may
express this frustration by engaging in aggressive behaviors in the workplace. Also, the
level of job security is quite different in public (high job security) and private organizations
(low job security) which affects employees’ emotional state. High job security induces
positive emotions such as joy, happiness, contentment and excitement, which are negatively
correlated with workplace incivility (Pearson and Porath, 2005). On the other hand, low job
security creates a negative emotional state and increases the experience of negative
emotions like anger, fear, sadness, jealousy and guilt, which correlate positively with
workplace incivility (Pearson and Porath, 2005).
In addition, organizations belonging to the same sector may be dissimilar in terms of
work culture, expectations, job duties, demands, etc. For instance, IT, hospitality, academics,
banking, etc., come under the umbrella of the service sector, but still, these industries differ
significantly in terms of nature of jobs, expectations and work cultures. While IT industry
requires employees to be technically sound and creative, bank employees are expected to
have good mathematical and analytical abilities. Similarly, the hospitality industry
demands employees to go beyond their job duties to serve the guests, and academicians are
expected to instill a passion for learning in their pupils apart from imparting them
education. This difference in role requirements in different industries may affect employees’
perceptions of incivility as well as their inclination to instigate discourteous acts at work.
Further, in masculine organizational culture or male-dominated organizations, uncivil
behaviors such as shouting may be more common as well as acceptable when compared to
feminine organizational cultures or female-dominated firms where such behaviors would be
perceived as rude (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Miner et al., 2012). Experienced and instigated
incivility may possibly be higher in IT [2] and banking [3] (male-dominated industries) as
compared to hospitality and academics (female-dominated industries). Thus, we
hypothesize:
Workplace
incivility

7. H2a. The levels of instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would be higher
in private than public organizations.
H2b. The levels of experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would be
higher in private than public organizations.
H2c. The levels of instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would be higher
in information technology and banking sector as compared to academics and
hospitality sector.
H2d. The levels of experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would be
higher in information technology and banking sector as compared to academics
and hospitality sector.
Age
Limited literature available on the relationship between workplace incivility and age
suggests a negative correlation between experienced incivility and age. For example, Lim
and Lee (2011) found that younger employees are more vulnerable to experience incivility.
On the other hand, instigated incivility has been found to vary positively as a function of
age. For instance, Leiter (2013) in a study conducted among employees from diverse US
organizations reported that older employees were more inclined to instigate discourteous
behaviors. J
ohannsd
ottir and Ólafsson (2004) in a study on employees from Iceland found
that aged supervisors were more abusive toward their subordinates than the younger ones.
Similarly, more cases of workplace violence, aggression and bullying were reported in the
organizations having a greater number of older supervisors than the ones with younger
supervisors (Keashley et al., 1994; Rayner, 1997). The above findings could be attributed to
the positive linkage between age and aggression. It is scientifically proven that as
individuals grow old, the level of aggression increases through the process of social learning
(Bandura, 1978), which may result in increased instances of engagement in negative
workplace behaviors (Liu et al., 2013). Thus, we expect:
H3a. Instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would increase with age.
H3b. Experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with
age.
Education
The education level of employees may affect their perception of incivility. Formal education
broadens an individual’s thinking, develops a progressive mentality and increases self-
esteem and self-efficacy (Burger, 2010; Morrison et al., 1995; Norwich, 1987). Thus,
employees with higher educational qualifications are less likely to notice or get offended by
subtle uncivil acts that hardly aim to harm anyone in the organization. In support of the
above arguments, MacLennan (2015) in a study conducted on US military employees found
that employees with the lower formal education reported higher incidents of experienced
incivility and a lower perception of overall civility in the workplace.
The educational qualification of individuals may also affect their inclination to instigate
incivility at work as formal education has been reported to improve moral reasoning and
judgment (McNeel, 1994; Perez-Delgado and Oliver, 1995; Rest et al., 1999). In the words of
Rest (1994, p. 22):
IJCMA

8. Formal education is a predictor of more complex moral reasoning because individuals who seek
higher education tend to be people who enjoy learning, are interested in self-growth, prosper in
intellectually and socially stimulating environments and are more interested and involved in the
community and societal issues.
Such morally sensitive individuals are less likely to engage in uncivil behaviors that are
unethical and morally wrong.
Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:
H4a. Instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with the level
of education.
H4b. Experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with the
level of education.
Position in the organizational hierarchy
We draw from the social power theory to argue that higher position in organizational
hierarchy affords higher status to individuals in the organization who may use uncivil
behaviors as a means to exercise control and power (Cortina, 2008). Incivility has mostly
been observed as a downward phenomenon in Eastern as well as Western cultures (Moon
and Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2021) probably because individuals at higher positions are
relatively less constrained by rules and regulations (Bowles and Gelfand, 2010). As
powerholders may not bear the negative consequences of their actions, higher
organizational status makes such individuals more prone to show uncivil behaviors toward
the powerless or low power individuals in the organization. The imbalance of power and
control in the workplace makes individuals at lower ranks in the organizational hierarchy
unlikely to express aggression or retaliate against the high power individuals, thereby
making them more vulnerable to incivility (Aquino et al., 2001). Cortina et al. (2001) in their
investigation on US federal court employees found that the frequency of workplace incivility
experienced by individuals higher up in the organizational hierarchy (attorneys and
secretaries) was low compared to others.
Status differences have also been found to play a significant role in appraisal and
interpretation of subtle forms of mistreatments in the workplace (Cortina and Magley, 2009:
Porath et al., 2008). Also, power has been asserted to influence the emotional responses to
incivility and its consequences (Moon and Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2021). Porath et al. (2008)
stressed that instigator’s position in organizational hierarchy affects the targets’ response
toward it. If the flow of incivility is top-down, then the victim’s reaction is very cold, for such
behaviors are considered appropriate for status “superior” even if it is against workplace
norms of mutual respect. Further, Porath and Pearson (2012) reported the moderating effects
of status difference between the targets and perpetrators on the relationship of incivility
perception of the targets and their emotional and behavioral responses. It has been found
that individuals in high power distance Asian countries find insult and other forms of
workplace mistreatments from high-ranked perpetrators more acceptable than Western
countries with low power distance (Power et al., 2013; Moon et al., 2018; Moon and Sanchez-
Rodriguez, 2021; Loh et al., 2021). On the similar lines, India being a highly hierarchical
society with a score of 77 on power distance index of Hofstede (2010), Indians are likely to be
more acceptable of incivility from those in the powerful positions.
Therefore, we hypothesize:
Workplace
incivility

9. H5a. Instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would increase with the
position in the organizational hierarchy.
H5b. Experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with the
position in the organizational hierarchy.
Tenure
The number of years spent in an organization by employees may predict their interpersonal
behaviors at work. Organizations differ in terms of their work culture, and it takes time for
an employee to adapt to the culture of an organization. Drawing on the human capital theory
of Adam Smith, behavioral scientists have reported that job tenure relates positively with
job performance, innovation, creativity and job satisfaction (Ng and Feldman, 2013; Liu
et al., 2016). On the same lines, with an increase in the number of years and time spent at
work, socialization and job satisfaction increase, which in turn may reduce the probability of
employees engaging in workplace incivility (Sliter et al., 2012; Schilpzand et al., 2016). As a
result, employees with higher tenure are less likely to instigate as well as experience uncivil
behaviors at work. Thus, it is proposed that:
H6a. Instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with tenure.
H6b. Experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would decrease with
tenure.
Marital status
Although Cortina et al. (2001) and Lim and Lee (2011) reported that marital status was not a
significant predictor of incivility experiences of employees, we believe that the marital
status of employees may affect their vulnerability to instigate or experience workplace
incivility because of several reasons. The first reason relates to the degree to which the need
for companionship is satisfied. Marriage may allow for satisfaction of universal relationship
needs such as the need for companionship or belonging, need for affection (physical and
verbal) and need for emotional support (Meek, 2012). A healthy marital relationship allows
employees to share their daily experiences, past histories and likes and dislikes together and
provides verbal and physical affection through hugs, compliments and sexual intimacy.
Marital companionship offers emotional support during tough times, and as a result, such
individuals are more satisfied with their life which enhances their job performance and job
satisfaction (Meek, 2012). At the same time, strained married life may increase employees’
stress level which correlates positively with instigated and experienced incivility (Sliter
et al., 2012). Also, married individuals are saddled with family responsibilities which may at
times conflict with their work life. And as a number of work–family studies have
established that work and family domains are not independent, rather there is a spillover of
emotions from one domain to another (Staines, 1980), employees may carry pressure or
stress from home life to work increasing the possibility of them engaging in misbehaviors in
the workplace (Etodike and Ezeh, 2017). According to frustration-aggression hypothesis
(Miller, 1941), the frustration caused because of conflict between family and work life may
induce individuals to behave aggressively.
On the other hand, there exists a possibility that single individuals may not be able to
satisfy their relationship needs, resulting in frustration making them more disposed to
experience and engage in uncivil acts in the workplace. Contrarily, single individuals may
not be burdened with family responsibilities that can interfere with their work life reducing
IJCMA

10. their possibility of engaging in and experiencing workplace mistreatments (Etodike and
Ezeh, 2017). Because of the alternative explanations, it would be intriguing to see how
marital status influences instigated and experienced incivility at work. We expect that:
H7a. When compared to married employees, single employees are more likely to
instigate uncivil acts toward their supervisor(s) and colleague(s).
H7b. When compared to married employees, single employees are more likely to
experience uncivil acts from their supervisor(s) and colleague(s).
Number of working hours
According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Miller, 1941), frustration triggers an
aggressive urge and incites an individual to behave in aggressive ways. Frustration occurs
because of the events or acts that interrupt the achievement of desirable goals. Working
longer hours can be frustrating, as it may interfere with employees’ attainment of desirable
personal or social goals (Sakurai, 2021). For example, because of long work hours,
employees may struggle to fulfill their family responsibilities and other personal
commitments leading to an increase in aggression which may take the form of incivility in
the workplace. Increased perception of time pressures may induce employees to be less
polite in their interpersonal behavior (Pearson and Porath, 2005). In a very recent study
conducted in Japan, Sakurai (2021) found that changes in work hours positively predicted
changes in co-worker incivility. Thus, increase in the duration of work hours is likely to
increase frustration which would provoke individuals to engage in uncivil transactions at
work.
On the basis of the above arguments and literature support, we expect that instigated
incivility and, as a result, experienced incivility would increase with the increase in working
hours.
H8a. Instigated incivility to supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would increase with the
increase in the duration of working hours.
H8b. Experienced incivility from supervisor(s) and colleague(s) would increase with the
increase in the duration of working hours.
The hypothesized research model is presented in Figure 1.
Method
Sample and procedures
The proposed conceptual model was tested on the same set of respondents in two different
studies with a time gap of one month. In Study 1, we explored the association between socio-
demographic factors and employees’ tendency to instigate incivility toward supervisors and
colleagues, and in Study 2, the linkage between employees’ socio-demographic
characteristics and experienced incivility from supervisors and colleagues was examined. A
time-lagged approach was used in both studies to minimize the occurrence of common
method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At Time 1 (T1), the participants filled their
demographic information. At Time 2 (T2) (a week after Time 1), the participants took the
survey on instigated incivility to supervisors (experienced incivility from supervisor in
Study 2). A week later, at Time 3 (T3), respondents filled the questionnaire on instigated
incivility to colleagues (experienced incivility from colleagues in Study 2). As a result of
Workplace
incivility

11. consistent follow-ups and rapport developed with the participants, we received a 100%
response rate at all three times T1, T2 and T3 in both the studies.
The sample consisted of 1,133 Indian employees working in a variety of service
industries such as academics, banking, hotel and IT, located in different states and Union
Territories of India. Participants were approached through email as well as personal visits
to the organization, and their informed consent was obtained before providing them with the
questionnaire. The participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and no incentives
were provided to the respondents. Of the sample, 350 (30.8%) employees were from
academics, 220 (19.4%) were from banking, 338 (29.8%) were from hotels and 225 (19.8%)
were from IT industries in both the studies. The number of male and female employees was
704 (62 %) and 429 (38%), respectively.
Measures
Workplace incivility experienced from/instigated toward supervisor and colleague. We
measured workplace incivility using Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) developed by Cortina
et al. (2013). It has 12 items to measure experienced incivility. The items used for measuring
experienced incivility from two sources (supervisor and colleague) were same except for a
minor change in the introductory sentence of the scale. For incivility experienced from
supervisors, the items (e.g. “Made jokes at someone’s expense”) were preceded by an
introductory phrase “In the last one year, how often have your SUPERVISOR(S) at work.”
To measure incivility experienced from a colleague, the word “COLLEAGUE(S)” was put in
place of “SUPERVISOR(S)” in the introductory sentence and similar items were followed.
Figure 1.
The hypothesized
research model
IJCMA

12. Instigated incivility was measured using the WIS with a minor modification in the
introductory phrase and its items (Blau and Andersson, 2005). In case of instigated incivility
to supervisors, the introductory sentence was “How often have YOU DONE the following
behaviors in the last one year to SUPERVISOR(S) at work” followed by the statements like
“Accused him/her of incompetence.” Again, to measure instigated incivility toward
colleague, the word “SUPERVISOR(S)” was replaced with “COLLEAGUE(S)” and identical
items were followed. All responses were taken on a five-point scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always).
We found the obtained incivility measures to be very dependable as the Cronbach’s alpha
values were high [Study 1: 0.958 (instigated incivility to supervisors) and 0.951 (instigated
incivility to colleagues); Study 2: 0.967 (experienced incivility from supervisors) and 0.956
(experienced incivility from colleagues)].
For the purpose of analysis, the demographic variables were coded as follows: Gender
(Male = 1 and Female = 2), Age (21–30 years = 1, 31–40 years = 2, 41–50 years = 3 and
above 50 years = 4), Nature of the organization (Private = 1 and Public = 2), Organization
type (Hotel industry = 1, Academics = 2, IT industry = 3 and Banking industry = 4),
Education (Below graduation = 1, Graduation = 2, Postgraduation = 3, Doctorate = 4 and
Others = 5), Marital status (Single/Unmarried = 1, Married = 2, Divorced = 3, Widower/
Widowed = 4 and Separated = 5), Position in the organizational hierarchy (Junior/
Operational level = 1, Middle/Executive level = 2 and Top/Senior level = 3), Tenure (Less
than 1 = 1, Between 1 and 5 = 2, Between 6 and 10 = 3, Between 11 and 15 = 4 and Above
15 = 5), Number of working hours (Less than 8 hours = 1, Between 8 and 10 hours = 2,
Between 10 and 12 hours = 3 and More than 12 hours = 4).
Data analysis
We analyzed the data with the help of SPSS version 24. Descriptive statistics, correlation
analysis, t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), post hoc test using Tukey’s
honestly significant difference and regression analysis were carried out to test the
hypotheses.
Results and discussion
Prevalence of workplace incivility in the Indian service sector
The first aim of the study was to examine the nature and prevalence of instigated and
experienced incivility in the Indian service sector. As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, on a
scale of 1–5, the mean values for instigated (Supervisor: M = 2.20, SD = 1.11; Colleague: M =
2.24, SD = 1.02) as well as experienced incivility were below average (Supervisor: M = 2.26,
SD = 1.08; Colleague: M = 2.24, SD = 1.06). A low level of instigated and experienced
incivility suggests that employees working in the Indian service sector are courteous in
nature and treat their peers and subordinates with the respect and dignity. Further, the
results of independent sample t-test on mean scores of instigated and experienced incivility
indicate that the level of experienced incivility was significantly higher than the instigated
incivility (Supervisor: t = 2.26, p 0.01; Colleague: t = 2.24, p 0.01). This result is in line
with the findings of Cortina et al. (2001), where a higher level of experienced incivility was
observed among US employees than the instigated incivility.
The lower levels of both types of incivility in the present study contradict the findings of
other research investigations from Western countries where higher levels of instigated and
experienced incivility have been witnessed (Pearson and Porath, 2005; Cortina et al., 2013).
This could be because of the differences in social and cultural aspects of Asian and Western
countries. Asians give more importance to maintaining interpersonal relationships with
others than Westerners, and as a consequence, employees from Asia are less likely to
Workplace
incivility

13. Serial
no.
Variables
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
Gender
1.38
0.48
–
2
Age
2.42
0.83
0.044
–
3
Education
2.83
0.76
0.060*
0.313**
–
4
Position
in
the
organizational
hierarchy
1.82
0.74
0.009
0.336**
0.361**
–
5
Duration
of
working
hours
1.84
0.63
0.213**
0.070*
0.356**
0.123**
–
6
Nature
of
the
organization
1.31
0.46
0.053
0.214**
0.363**
0.060*
0.139**
–
7
Type
of
the
organization
2.29
1.09
0.083**
0.056
0.063*
0.055
0.131**
0.354**
–
8
Tenure
2.49
1.10
0.045
0.510**
0.224**
0.293**
0.062*
0.171**
0.001
–
9
Marital
status
1.56
0.55
0.035
0.343**
0.253**
0.139**
0.061*
0.087**
0.054
0.326**
–
10
Instigated
incivility
from
supervisor
2.20
1.11
0.044
0.057
0.156**
0.091**
0.064*
0.118**
0.019
0.019
0.040
(0.958)
11
Instigated
incivility
from
colleague
2.24
1.02
0.050
0.064*
0.163**
0.083**
0.061*
0.122**
0.017
0.021
0.043
0.956**
(0.951)
Notes:
*Correlation
is
significant
at
the
0.05
level
(two-tailed).
**Correlation
is
significant
at
0.01
level
(two-tailed);
Figures
in
the
parenthesis
represent
Cronbach’s
a
values
Source:
Authors’
own
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics
and inter-correlations
among study
variables in Study 1
(N = 1,133)
IJCMA

14. Serial
no.
Variables
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
Gender
1.38
0.48
–
2
Age
2.42
0.83
0.044
–
3
Education
2.83
0.76
0.060*
0.313**
–
4
Position
in
the
organizational
hierarchy
1.82
0.74
0.009
0.336**
0.361**
–
5
Duration
of
working
hours
1.84
0.63
0.213**
0.070*
0.356**
0.123**
–
6
Nature
of
the
organization
1.31
0.46
0.053
0.214**
0.363**
0.060*
0.139**
–
7
Type
of
the
organization
2.29
1.09
0.083**
0.056
0.063*
0.055
0.131**
0.354**
–
8
Tenure
2.49
1.10
0.045
0.510**
0.224**
0.293**
0.062*
0.171**
0.001
–
9
Marital
status
1.56
0.55
0.035
0.343**
0.253**
0.139**
0.061*
0.087**
0.054
0.326**
–
10
Experienced
incivility
from
supervisor
2.26
1.08
0.028
0.053
0.156**
0.088**
0.059*
0.111**
0.027
0.029
0.016
(0.967)
11
Experienced
incivility
from
colleague
2.24
1.06
0.054
0.074*
0.184**
0.104**
0.087**
0.136**
0.022
0.042
0.013
0.948**
(0.956)
Notes:
*Correlation
is
significant
at
the
0.05
level
(two-tailed);
**Correlation
is
significant
at
0.01
level
(two-tailed);
Figures
in
the
parenthesis
represent
Cronbach’s
a
values.
Source:
Authors’
own
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics
and inter-correlations
among study
variables in Study 2
(N = 1,133)
Workplace
incivility

15. instigate incivility in the workplace and are less susceptible to perceive uncivil behaviors
that do not aim to harm anybody.
Gender and workplace incivility
Gender significantly predicted instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.044, p = 0.137; Colleague:
b = 0.050, p = 0.093) and experienced (Supervisor: b = 0.028, p = 0.340; Colleague: b =
0.054, p = 0.067) incivility from colleagues (Table 5). Although males scored higher on the
instigated and experienced incivility than females, the t-values (Table 3) indicate that the
difference was significant only for incivility to and experienced from colleague (Instigated
incivility to supervisor: t-values = 1.48, p = 0.137; Instigated incivility to colleague: t-values
= 1.68, p = 0.093; Experienced incivility from supervisor: t-values = 0.95, p = 0.340–0.10;
Experienced incivility from colleague: t-values = 1.83, p = 0.067). Thus, H1a and H1b were
partially supported.
These findings suggest that gender plays a significant role in determining instigated and
experienced incivility from colleague. Men were found to instigate higher level of incivility
to colleagues and also experienced higher incivility from colleagues than women. The
former finding is perfectly in line with our expectations that because of strong gender-based
stereotypes in Indian society, men as dominant group members are more likely to use
incivility as a mechanism to assert power in the workplace. Also, men may have reported
higher incivility from colleagues because of their intolerance for rude behaviors because of
their perceived higher status in the society. Contrary to the selective incivility and social
power theory perspectives, it was surprising to note that women did not experience higher
incivility than men despite India slipping 28 places to 140th rank among 156 nations in
Gender Equality Index [4]. This finding is in line with that of Lim and Lee (2011) conducted
in Asian context where men were found to experience higher incivility than women, while it
contradicts the results of Cortina et al. (2001) obtained in Western context. This is probably
because of women’s tendency to eternalize their victimization by enduring discourteous
behaviors due to the differences in the socialization process of men and women in a
patriarchal society like India.
However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, given the focus of current
study on service sector organizations and the skewed data with only 38% of women. Also,
as reported by Gabriel et al. (2018) in a recent study that agentic women experienced greater
incivility from other women than men, the categorization of sources of incivility on the basis
of gender could have provided deeper insights on the pattern of relationships.
Nature of organization, industry type and workplace incivility
The regression results (Table 5) show that the nature of organization significantly affected
instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.118, p 0.01; Colleague: b = 0.122, p 0.01) as well as
experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.111, p 0.01; Colleague: b = 0.136, p 0.01).
Table 3 shows that the level of instigated incivility in private organizations (Supervisor:
M = 2.29, SD = 1.12; Colleague: M = 2.32, SD = 1.04) was significantly (Supervisor:
t-values = 4.01, p 0.01; Colleague: t-values = 4.14, p 0.01) higher than that in public
organizations (Supervisor: M = 2.008, SD = 1.05; Colleague: M = 2.05, SD = 0.95). Also, the
difference in the mean scores of experienced incivility in public (Supervisor: M = 2.08, SD =
1.03; Colleague: M = 2.02, SD = 0.99) and private firms (Supervisor: M = 2.34, SD = 1.09;
Colleague: M = 2.34, SD = 1.08) was statistically significant (Supervisor: t-values = 3.76, p
0.01; Colleague: t-values = 4.60, p 0.01). This confirmed our H2a and H2b. The higher level
of both types of incivility in private organizations can be attributed to the feelings of job
insecurity, competitive work culture and long working hours. Apart from making
IJCMA

16. Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
supervisor(s)
Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
colleague(s)
Serial
no.
Variables
N
Mean
SD
t-value
N
Mean
SD
t-value
1
Gender
Male
Female
704
429
2.24
a
2.28
b
2.14
a
2.22
b
1.13
a
1.10
b
1.07
a
1.04
b
1.48
a
0.95
b
704
429
2.28
a
2.28
b
2.17
a
2.16
b
1.04
a
1.08
b
0.99
a
1.03
b
1.68*
a
1.83*
b
2
Nature
of
the
organization
Private
Public
777
356
2.29
a
2.34
b
2.01
a
2.08
b
1.12
a
1.09
b
1.05
a
1.03
b
4.01***
a
3.76***
b
778
355
2.32
a
2.34
b
2.05
a
2.02
b
1.04
a
1.08
b
0.95
a
0.99
b
4.14***
a
4.60***
b
Notes:
***p
0.01,
*p
0.10;
a
denotes
values
for
Study
1
(instigated
incivility);
b
denotes
values
for
Study
2
(experienced
incivility)
Source:
Authors’
own
Table 3.
Differences in
workplace incivility
on the basis of
gender and nature of
the organization in
Study 1 (instigated
incivility; N = 1,133)
and Study 2
(experienced
incivility; N = 1,133)
Workplace
incivility

17. employees more susceptible to experience negative emotions, job insecurity compels them to
tolerate uncivil behaviors from superiors to save position or job in the organization,
resulting in an increased level of experienced incivility.
Further, the regression results (Table 5) show that industry type did not predict the
occurrence of instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.019, p = 0.527; Colleague: b = 0.017, p = 0.577)
and experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.027, p = 0.369; Colleague: b = 0.022, p =
0.465). The levels of instigated as well as experienced incivility were highest among hotel
employees and lowest among academicians, and ANOVA results confirmed significant
differences in the instigation (Supervisor: F value = 14.09, p 0.01; Colleague: F value =
15.82, p 0.01) and experience (Supervisor: F value = 14.29, p 0.01; Colleague: F value =
21.72, p 0.01) of incivility in different industries (Table 4). The post hoc comparisons
revealed significant differences (p 0.05) in the instigated incivility between hotel industry
(Supervisor: M = 2.37, SD = 1.09; Colleague: M = 2.40, SD = 1.02) and academics
(Supervisor: M = 1.88, SD = 1.02; Colleague: M = 1.93, SD = 0.89), academics and IT
industry (Supervisor: M = 2.32, SD = 1.11; Colleague: M = 2.36, SD = 1.05) and academics
and banking industry (Supervisor: M = 2.32, SD = 1.18; Colleague: M = 2.35, SD = 1.08).
Further, the post hoc analysis showed significant differences (p 0.05) in experienced
incivility scores between hotel industry (Supervisor: M = 2.41, SD = 1.07; Colleague: M =
2.43, SD = 1.06) and academics (Supervisor: M = 1.95, SD = 0.94; Colleague: M = 1.87, SD =
0.89), academics and IT industry (Supervisor: M = 2.39, SD = 1.10; Colleague: M = 2.41,
SD = 1.08) and academics and banking industry (Supervisor: M = 2.39, SD = 1.17;
Colleague: M = 2.36, SD = 1.14). Thus, H2c and H2d were partially confirmed.
The experienced as well as instigated incivility was found to be significantly lower in
academics than that in hospitality, IT and banking industries. This supports our proposition
that uncivil behaviors are likely to be less commonly observed in soft industries with
feminine organizational culture marked by values of nurturance and quality of life
(Hofstede, 2010). In contrast to our expectations, hospitality industry reported highest
degree of experienced and instigated incivility. Although the incivility level (experienced
and instigated by colleagues as well as supervisors) in hospitality sector was not
significantly different from that in IT and banking, it was significantly higher than that in
academics. A possible explanation for this finding could be the higher levels of interaction in
hotel as well as banking industry which increase the chances of employees experiencing
incivility from customers and other employees. Customer incivility has been reported to
increase employees’ negative emotions such as stress, emotional exhaustion,
disappointment and job dissatisfaction and promote employee-to-employee incivility
(Torres et al., 2017). Employees in industries with direct customer interface undergo
emotional labor in response to customer incivility and experience greater emotional
exhaustion which makes them more prone to experience and instigate uncivil behaviors
(Sliter, 2010). The IT industry showed significantly higher incidence of experienced and
instigated incivility compared to academics probably because of the male-dominated culture
in IT characterized by values of aggression, competition and material success in contrast to
the feminine nature of academics and teaching (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
Age and workplace incivility
Age significantly predicted instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.057, p = 0.055; Colleague: b =
0.064, p = 0.032) and experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.053, p = 0.072; Colleague:
b = 0.074, p = 0.013) (Table 5). Thus, both types of incivility decreased with age. The level
of instigated and experienced incivility was highest in 31–40 age groups and lowest in
above 50 age category and ANOVA results confirmed that instigated (Supervisor: F = 2.33,
IJCMA

18. Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
supervisor(s)
Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
colleague(s)
Serial
no.Variables
N
Mean
SD
F-value
Levene
test
Levene
statistics
N
Mean
SD
F-value
Levene
test
Levene
statistics
1.
Age
21–30
31–40
41–50
50
856
148
66
63
2.21
a
2.27
b
2.30
a
2.37
b
2.02
a
2.08
b
1.92
a
2.01
b
1.11
a
1.08
b
1.15
a
1.13
b
1.02
a
1.006
b
1.03
a
0.94
b
2.33*
a
2.32*
b
3.161**
a
3.079**
b
856
148
66
63
2.26
a
2.26
b
2.34
a
2.36
b
2.07
a
2.03
b
1.95
a
1.90
b
1.02
a
1.06
b
1.08
a
1.11
b
0.95
a
1.009
b
0.89
a
0.92
b
2.85**
a
3.74**
b
3.477**
a
5.009***
b
2.
Education
Below
graduation
Graduation
Postgraduation
Doctorate
Others
3
429
451
248
2
2.05
a
1.94
b
2.36
a
2.41
b
2.22
a
2.31
b
1.88
a
1.93
b
1.20
a
1.66
b
1.04
a
0.91
b
1.14
a
1.11
b
1.09
a
1.08
b
1.03
a
0.94
b
0.05
a
0.35
b
7.87***
a
8.60***
b
7.578***
a
7.670***
b
3
429
451
248
2
2.13
a
1.69
b
2.39
a
2.41
b
2.27
a
2.29
b
1.93
a
1.85
b
1.33
a
1.54
b
0.97
a
0.33
b
1.04
a
1.10
b
1.03
a
1.06
b
0.88
a
0.90
b
0.11
a
0.41
b
8.79***
a
12.25***
b
8.350***
a
15.339***
b
3.
Position
in
the
organizational
hierarchy
Junior
level
Middle
level
Top
level
432
474
227
2.32
a
2.37
b
2.16
a
2.23
b
2.05
a
2.11
b
1.15
a
1.12
b
1.08
a
1.04
b
1.09
a
1.06
b
4.75***
a
4.42**
b
3.920**
a
3.829**
b
432
474
227
2.34
a
2.36
b
2.21
a
2.21
b
2.12
a
2.06
b
1.05
a
1.09
b
0.99
a
1.03
b
1.002
a
1.04
b
3.95**
a
6.21***
b
3.510**
a
4.471***
b
4.
Industry
type
Hotel
industry
Academics
IT
industry
Banking
industry
338
350
225
220
2.37
a
2.41
b
1.88
a
1.95
b
2.32
a
2.39
b
2.32
a
2.39
b
1.09
a
1.07
b
1.02
a
0.94
b
1.11
a
1.10
b
1.18
b
1.17
b
14.09***
a
14.29***
b
3.250***
a
3.492***
b
338
350
225
220
2.40
a
2.43
b
1.93
a
1.87
b
2.36
a
2.41
b
2.35
a
2.36
b
1.02
a
1.06
b
0.89
a
0.89
b
1.05
a
1.08
b
1.08
a
1.14
b
15.82***
a
21.72***
b
4.116***
a
4.548***
b
5.
Tenure
1
143
572
2.12
a
2.19
b
1.11
a
1.06
b
0.91
1
1.20
b
1.974***
a
1.974***
b
143
572
2.16
a
2.19
b
1.02
a
1.05
b
1.09
a
1.61
b
1.659***
a
2.106***
b
(continued)
Table 4.
Differences in
workplace incivility
on the basis of age,
education, position in
the organizational
hierarchy, industry
type, tenure, marital
status and number of
working hours in
Study 1 (instigated
incivility; N = 1,133)
and Study 2
(experienced
incivility; N = 1,133)
Workplace
incivility

19. Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
supervisor(s)
Instigated
incivility
to/experienced
incivility
from
colleague(s)
Serial
no.Variables
N
Mean
SD
F-value
Levene
test
Levene
statistics
N
Mean
SD
F-value
Levene
test
Levene
statistics
1–5
6–10
11–15
15
266
27
125
2.23
a
2.29
b
2.25
a
2.32
b
2.01
1
2.06
b
2.09
a
2.12
b
1.12
a
1.09
b
1.11
1
1.07
b
0.98
a
0.92
b
1.10
a
1.05
b
266
27
125
2.27
a
2.27
b
2.29
a
2.30
b
2.06
a
2.04
b
2.13
a
2.05
b
1.03
a
1.07
b
1.02
a
1.08
b
0.95
a
0.89
b
0.99
a
1.03
b
6.
Marital
status
Unmarried
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Separated
515
607
3
5
3
2.16
a
2.25
b
2.22
a
2.26
b
2.38
a
2.50
b
2.01
1
1.85
b
3.38
a
3.30
b
1.11
1
1.07
b
1.11
1
1.08
b
1.46
a
1.10
b
0.79
a
0.49
b
1.86
a
1.56
b
1.11
1
0.92
b
1.739***
a
1.743***
b
515
607
3
5
3
2.20
a
2.23
b
2.27
a
2.24
b
2.33
a
2.47
b
2.11
1
1.68
b
3.25
a
3.22
b
1.01
1
1.05
b
1.03
a
1.07
b
1.66
a
1.40
b
0.70
a
0.30
b
1.59
a
1.63
b
1.04
a
1.03
b
1.679**
a
1.627**
b
7.
Number
of
working
hours
8
8–10
10–12
12
302
746
53
32
2.01
1
2.08
b
2.28
a
2.34
b
2.17
a
2.24
b
2.11
1
2.12
b
1.06
a
1.02
b
1.12
a
1.09
b
1.15
a
1.15
b
1.13
a
1.05
b
4.44***
a
4.54***
b
2.694***
a
2.955***
b
302
746
53
32
2.07
a
2.009
b
2.32
a
2.34
b
2.19
a
2.22
b
2.16
a
2.19
b
0.96
a
0.98
b
1.03
a
1.07
b
1.07
a
1.14
b
1.03
a
1.05
b
4.33***
a
7.07***
b
3.297***
a
2.928***
b
Notes:
***p
0.01;
**p
0.05;
*p
0.10;
a
denotes
values
for
Study
1
(instigated
incivility);
b
denotes
values
for
Study
2
(experienced
incivility)
Source:
Authors’
own
Table 4.
IJCMA

20. p 0.10; Colleague: F = 2.85, p 0.05) and experienced incivility differed considerably
among different age categories (Supervisor: F = 2.32, p 0.10; Colleague: F = 3.74, p 0.05)
(Table 4). Further, post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference (p 0.05) in the
instigated and experienced incivility values for employees between 31 and 40 years
(Instigated incivility to supervisor: M = 2.30, SD = 1.15; Instigated incivility to colleague:
M = 2.34, SD = 1.08; Experienced incivility from supervisor: M = 2.37, SD = 1.13;
Experienced incivility from colleague: M = 2.36, SD = 1.11) and employees above 50 years of
age (Instigated incivility to supervisor: M = 1.92, SD = 1.03; Instigated incivility to
colleague: M = 1.95, SD = 0.89; Experienced incivility from supervisor: M = 2.01, SD = 0.94;
Experienced incivility from colleague: M = 1.90, SD = 0.92). Thus, it was confirmed that
employees in the age range of 31–40 years instigated and experienced more uncivil
behaviors at work than the employees who were above 50 years of age. Thus, H3a was
rejected and H3b was accepted.
These findings with regard to instigated incivility contradict the results of previous
studies where older employees were reported instigating all forms of negative workplace
behaviors more than their younger counterparts (Keashley et al., 1994; Rayner, 1997; Leiter,
2013). As stress relates significantly to workplace incivility (Schilpzand et al., 2016), this
finding could probably be explained in terms of higher levels of stress among younger
individuals than the older ones. Young generation, especially the individuals between 18
and 35 years, have been reported to be more stressed than old people who are either retired
or close to their retirement (Oaklander, 2016). It is so because old people have a better coping
mechanism than young adults (Aldwin et al., 1996). As a result, older individuals experience
Table 5.
Effect of socio-
demographic
variables on
workplace incivility
in Study 1 (instigated
incivility; N = 1,133)
and Study 2
(experienced
incivility; N = 1,133)
Instigated incivility to/experienced incivility
from supervisor(s)
Instigated incivility to/experienced incivility
from colleague(s)
Predictor
variables b t-value Adjusted R2
F value b t-value Adjusted R2
F value
Gender 0.044a
0.0282
1.4881
0.9552
0.0011
0.0002
2.2141
0.9132
0.0501
0.0542
1.684*a
1.834*b
0.0021
0.0022
2.8341
3.362b
Nature of the
organization
0.118***a
0.111***b
4.013***a
3.766***b
0.0131
0.0122
16.102***a
14.181***b
0.122***a
0.136***b
4.145***a
4.606***b
0.0141
0.0182
17.181***a
21.212***b
Type of the
organization
0.0191
0.0272
0.6321
0.8982
0.0011
0.0002
0.4001
0.8062
0.0171
0.0222
0.5581
0.7302
0.0011
0.0002
0.3111
0.5332
Age 0.057*a
0.053*b
1.921*a
1.799*b
0.0021
0.0022
3.689*a
3.236*b
0.064**a
0.074**b
2.149**a
2.500**b
0.0031
0.0052
4.616**a
6.248**b
Education level 0.156***a
0.156***b
5.312***a
5.323***b
0.0231
0.0242
28.223***a
28.333***b
0.163***a
0.184***b
5.544***a
6.307***b
0.0261
0.0332
30.733***a
39.774***b
Position in the
organizational
hierarchy
0.091***a
0.088***b
3.074***a
2.971***b
0.0071
0.0072
9.451***a
8.829***b
0.083***a
0.104***b
2.790***a
3.526***b
0.0061
0.0102
7.786***a
12.435***b
Tenure 0.0191
0.0292
0.6451
0.9632
0.0011
0.0002
0.4611
0.9272
0.0211
0.0422
0.7201
1.3992
0.0001
0.0012
0.5191
1.9592
Marital status 0.0401
0.0162
1.3361
0.5252
0.0011
0.0012
1.7851
0.2762
0.0431
0.0132
1.4461
0.4442
0.0011
0.0012
2.0921
0.1942
Duration of
working hours
0.064**a
0.59**b
2.1481
1.979**b
0.0031
0.0032
4.612**a
3.915**b
0.061**a
0.087***b
2.041**a
2.939***b
0.0031
0.0072
4.161**a
8.640***b
Notes: ***p 0.01; **p 0.05; *p 0.10. a
Denotes values for Study 1 (instigated incivility); b
Denotes
values for Study 2 (experienced incivility)
Source: Authors’ own
Workplace
incivility

21. more resilience in their lives than the younger ones. Nevertheless, the findings with regard to
experienced incivility support the results of Lim and Lee (2011) where younger employees
experienced more incivility than the older employees in the workplace. As discussed earlier, this
again could be attributed to high levels of stress and poor coping abilities among younger
individuals, which correlate positively with experienced incivility (Schilpzand et al., 2016).
Level of education and workplace incivility
The level of education related significantly with instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.156, p 0.01;
Colleague: b = 0.163, p 0.01) as well as experienced incivility at work (Supervisor: b =
0.156, p 0.01; Colleague: b = 0.184, p 0.01) (Table 5). The instigated and experienced
incivility were highest among graduates and lowest among others and ANOVA results
confirmed significance of differences in the levels of instigated (Supervisor: F value = 7.87, p
0.01; Colleague: F value = 8.79, p 0.01) and experienced incivility (Supervisor: F value = 8.60,
p 0.01; Colleague: F value = 12.25, p 0.01) among employees with different educational
attainments (Table 4). The post hoc comparison showed a significant difference (p 0.05)
between instigated incivility for the employees having a graduate degree (Supervisor: M = 2.36,
SD = 1.14; Colleague: M = 2.39, SD = 1.04) and employees with a doctorate degree (Supervisor: M
= 1.88, SD = 1.03; Colleague: M = 1.93, SD = 0.88). Also, a significant difference (p 0.05) was
found in instigated incivility levels between employees with a post-graduate degree (Supervisor:
M = 2.22, SD = 1.09; Colleague: M = 2.27, SD = 1.03) and those with a doctorate degree. No
statistically significant difference was found in instigated incivility levels among graduate and
post-graduate categories. Thus, H4a and H4b were confirmed.
Low instigated incivility among highly educated groups can be explained in terms of their
increased moral sensitivity developed through the years of formal education (McNeel, 1994;
Perez-Delgado and Oliver, 1995; Rest et al., 1999). Similarly, with respect to experienced incivility,
the post hoc comparison showed a significant difference (p 0.05) in incivility perceptions
between employees with graduation (Supervisor: M = 2.41, SD = 1.11; Colleague: M = 2.41, SD =
1.10) and doctorate degree (Supervisor: M = 1.93, SD = 0.94; Colleague: M = 1.85, SD = 0.90) and
between post-graduates (Supervisor: M = 2.31, SD = 1.08; Colleague: M = 2.29, SD = 1.06) and
doctorate degree holders. These findings support the results of MacLennan (2015) where
employees with the highest level of education were found to report the lowest incidents of
experienced incivility in the organization. A probable reason for lower incivility perceptions
among highly educated employees could be their progressive mentality and high level of self-
esteem developed through formal education (Burger, 2010; Norwich, 1987).
Position and workplace incivility
Employees’ position in the organizational hierarchy was found to negatively relate with
instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.091, p 0.01; Colleague: b = 0.083, p 0.01) and experienced
incivility in the workspace (Supervisor: b = 0.088, p 0.01; Colleague: b = 0.104, p 0.01)
(Table 5). Table 4 shows significant differences in instigated (Supervisor: F value = 4.75, p 0.01;
Colleague: F value = 3.95, p 0.05) and experienced incivility (Supervisor: F value = 4.42, p
0.05; Colleague: F value = 6.21, p 0.01) at different organizational levels. The level of instigated
as well as experienced incivility was highest among junior-level employees and lowest among
top-level employees of the organization. Further, the post hoc comparisons showed a significant
difference (p 0.05) between the mean scores of junior-level employees (Supervisor: M = 2.32,
SD = 1.15; Colleague: M = 2.34, SD = 1.05) and top-level employees (Supervisor: M = 2.05, SD =
1.09; Colleague: M = 2.12, SD = 1.002) on instigated incivility. Thus, H5a was rejected. This
finding is in contrast to that of previous studies where top-level employees were reported to
instigate more uncivil behaviors than the lower-level employees (Pearson et al., 2000; Pratto and
IJCMA

22. Stewart, 2011). The higher level of instigated incivility among junior-level employees could be
attributed to their lower ability of moral reasoning and judgment because of their lower
educational qualifications, as discussed in the previous section.
In case of experienced incivility, the post hoc comparisons showed a significant difference
(p 0.05) between the mean scores of junior-level (Supervisor: M = 2.37, SD = 1.12; Colleague: M
= 2.36, SD = 1.09) and senior-level employees (Supervisor: M = 2.11, SD = 1.06; Colleague: M =
2.06, SD = 1.04) on experienced incivility. Thus, H5b was accepted. This finding is perfectly in
line with the findings of previous studies where lower-level employees were reported to
experience more discourteous behaviors at work than the senior ones (Caza and Cortina, 2007;
Pratto and Stewart, 2011). As organizational position reflects power differences among
individuals, the explanation for this finding lies in acceptance of unequal power distribution in
the workplace in high power distance cultures. Low power individuals invite uncivil actions from
powerful perpetrators because of their higher acceptability of mistreatments from high-ranked
officials and lower probability of retaliation through aggression or expression of other emotions
(Moon and Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2021).
Tenure and workplace incivility
Employees’ tenure failed to predict instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.019, p = 0.519; Colleague:
b = 0.021, p = 0.471) and experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.029, p = 0.336;
Colleague: b = 0.042, p = 0.162) (Table 5). Mean values suggest that both experienced and
instigated incivility were highest for employees with 6–10 years of tenure and lowest for 11–
15 years category (Table 4). However, ANOVA results revealed no significant difference in
instigated (Supervisor: F = 0.91, p = 0.454; Colleague: F = 1.09, p = 0.358) as well as
experienced (Supervisor: F = 1.20, p = 0.309; Colleague: F = 1.61, p = 0.169) incivility among
employees with varying tenures (Table 4). Hence, H6a and H6b were not supported.
These findings are in line with the results of Sackett et al. (2006) where job tenure was not
found to explain counterproductive behaviors at work. Although socialization among employees
increases with the increase in tenure, the rising attrition rates in the organizations these days has
made day-to-day equation among employees more dynamic. Further, more than tenure, incivility
in the workplace is likely to be a function of organizational culture and policies which play a
significant role in shaping behavioral norms in the workplace.
Marital status and workplace incivility
In contrast to the expectations, results revealed that employees’ marital status does not
affect instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.040, p = 0.182; Colleague: b = 0.043, p = 0.148) and
experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.016, p = 0.600; Colleague: b = 0.013, p = 0.659)
(Table 5). Although the mean values indicate that the levels of instigated and experienced
incivility were highest among separated employees and lowest among widowed employees,
these differences were found to be insignificant (Instigated incivility to supervisor: F = 1.11,
p = 0.348; Instigated incivility to colleague: F = 1.04, p = 0.385; Experienced incivility from
supervisor: F = 0.92, p = 0.448; Experienced incivility from colleague: F = 1.03, p = 0.390)
(Table 4). Thus, H7a and H7b were not supported.
These findings are in line with that of Lim and Lee (2011) and Cortina et al. (2001) where
marital status made no difference to the incidences of incivility in the workplace. A probable
explanation for this finding could be a whole lot of reasons beyond marital relationship that
make married and single individuals equally disposed to perceive and incite uncivil deeds in
the workplace. Married individuals have responsibilities of spouse and children; similarly,
single individuals may be supporting their parents and siblings, making both categories of
individuals equally prone to experience work–family conflict, frustration, negative emotions
Workplace
incivility

23. and, hence, incivility. Similarly, married individuals may not be able to satiate their
relationship needs because of strained relationship with spouse, while single individuals
may get their needs for companionship satisfied through close friends and relationship
partners. However, further research is recommended to confirm the association.
Number of working hours and workplace incivility
The duration of working hours related positively with instigated (Supervisor: b = 0.064,
p 0.05; Colleague: b = 0.061, p 0.05) and experienced incivility (Supervisor: b = 0.059,
p 0.05; Colleague: b = 0.087, p 0.01) in the workplace (Table 5). The levels of instigated
and experienced incivility were highest among employees working for 8–10 hours and
lowest among those with working hours less than 8 hours (Table 4). ANOVA results
revealed significant differences in the levels of instigated (Supervisor: F value = 4.44, p
0.01; Colleague: F value = 4.33, p 0.01) as well as experienced (Supervisor: F value = 4.54,
p 0.01; Colleague: F value = 7.07, p 0.01) incivility based on work duration (Table 4).
The post hoc analysis showed a significant difference (p 0.05) between the instigated
incivility mean scores for work duration “under 8 hours” (Supervisor: M = 2.01, SD = 1.06;
Colleague: M = 2.07, SD = 0.96) and “between 8 to 10 hours” (Supervisor: M = 2.28, SD =
1.12; Colleague: M = 2.32, SD = 1.03). With respect to experienced incivility, the post hoc
analysis showed significant difference (p 0.05) between the mean values of experienced
incivility for work duration between “under 8 hours” (Supervisor: M = 2.08, SD = 1.02;
Colleague: M = 2.009, SD = 0.98) and “8 to 10 hours” (Supervisor: M = 2.34, SD = 1.09;
Colleague: M = 2.34, SD = 1.07). Thus, hypotheses H8a and H8b were partially confirmed.
These findings could be explained on the basis of frustration-aggression hypothesis
(Miller, 1941). Eight hours a day is the regular work duration in most of the organizations in
India, and hence, employees are mentally prepared accordingly to adjust their work and
other duties. When the working hours exceed this duration, it is likely to interfere and
conflict with employees’ ability to meet their personal and social responsibilities which
causes frustration. Frustration caused because of this conflict adversely affects employees’
emotional well-being and makes them more vulnerable to instigate and experience incivility
with higher intensity (Sakurai, 2021).
Theoretical contributions and practical implications of the study
By identifying the levels of experienced and instigated incivility and their major sources, the
study adds to the deficient knowledge on the extent of diffusion of incivility in Indian
business organizations. The study throws light on the degree of prevalence of incivility and
explains the role of socio-demographic variables in determining employees’ tendency to act
in an uncivil manner toward others at the work as well as their vulnerability to be the target
of incivility. The study established that uncivil behaviors were more common and frequent
in private organizations. Among the sampled organizations, incivility was observed to be
highest in hotels and lowest in academic institutions. With regard to the impact of socio-
demographics, significant differences were observed in the level of co-worker incivility
among male and female employees. Age also emerged as a significant factor in explaining
the phenomenon of incivility at work. Experienced as well as instigated incivility was higher
in younger age groups when compared to employees above 50 years of age. Further,
workplace incivility was found to vary by the level of education of employees. Job
characteristics were also found to account for differences in workplace incivility. Employees
at different levels in the organization were found to differ with regard to uncivil behaviors.
Top-level employees reported lower levels of experienced and instigated incivility when
compared to employees at junior and middle management levels. Also, workplace incivility
IJCMA

24. was found to increase with the increase in the number of working hours. At the same time,
workplace incivility was found to be independent of marital status and job tenure.
The study provides empirical evidence on the effect of socio-demographic and job-related
factors on instigated and experienced incivility from supervisors and colleagues and, in
doing so, contributes to more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of low-intensity
negative behaviors in the organizational landscape. By explaining how distinct social and
demographic attributes affect peoples’ behavior in an organizational setting, the study adds
to the limited understanding around the role of individual differences in determining
employees’ conduct in the workplace.
The findings of the present study also have important implications for the leaders of
organizations, particularly in the Indian service sector. Although the study indicated below
average level of workplace incivility in the service sector organizations, it is important that the
issue is paid adequate attention and appropriate steps are taken before it starts adversely
affecting the desired workplace outcomes. It is pertinent to create a culture of respect where
everyone is treated with dignity during interpersonal transactions at work. Modeling of right
behaviors and conduct by individuals in leadership position is one of the keys to building a civil
workplace, as employees are likely to infer from leaders’ conduct what behaviors are acceptable
and follow the suit. Further, hiring right employees can play a substantial role in addressing the
problem of incivility from the root. Organizations may look for the signs of good conduct through
various team exercises and should be wary of selecting candidates who make the team
uncomfortable in some way. As individuals who use cooperative style of conflict management
are less likely to be impolite, organizations may consider using conflict management exercises as
a part of their selection process. Since offenders rarely recognize their behaviors as uncivil, it is
imperative for the organizations to impart civility awareness training. Organizations can make
use of role playing technique or video exercises to coach employees to monitor and improve their
tone, pitch, facial expression, gestures, word choice, etc. Rewarding civil behaviors and punishing
rude behaviors by including them in performance management system can be another important
strategy to promote civil work conduct. These practices will enforce strong norms of conduct in
the workplace and create a civil work atmosphere.
As the diversity of personal and job-related characteristics of employees significantly affects
their behavior at the workplace, organizations need to consider this diversity while attempting to
understand the nature of workplace incivility and finding ways to deal with this issue. Because
any HR intervention is costly in terms of time and monetary resources, this information would
enable managers to optimally use limited resources at their disposal in uprooting incivility from
the workplace. The findings of the study imply that managers can adopt uniform strategies to
manage workplace incivility irrespective of employees’ tenure in the organization and their
marital status. However, they need to take into account the differences in gender, age, nature of
the organization, education, number of working hours, type of organization and position in the
organizational hierarchy while designing civility interventions. For example, because of higher
prevalence of incivility in the private organizations, it is important that work culture be improved
through appropriate policies on employment contract and work life balance so that employees
feel secured, relaxed and able to achieve their work as well as personal goals. This would shield
them from frustration and prevent their chances of engaging in uncivil acts with their peers and
seniors. Also, efforts should be made by founders and managers to create flat organizational
structures, thereby reducing status hierarchy and introducing more transparency and openness
in workplace interactions among individuals. Further, employees should be made aware of
gender-based stereotypes in the workplace and consciously consider their behavior toward
members of minority groups in the organizations through proper training. In addition,
organizations are encouraged to provide opportunities for educational advancements to
Workplace
incivility

25. employees, especially the younger ones through in-house as well as sponsored courses in
universities so as to promote moral awareness, judgment and behaviors. Also, organizations
should plan the work hours taking into account the productivity as well as well-being of
employees, as working hours beyond eight hours a day start interfering with their responsibilities
in other life domains and increase the probability of frustration and, consequently, aggression.
By clustering employees according to their socio-demographic characteristics and targeting the
interventions toward the right set of people, managers will be able to more effectively control and
prevent the evil of incivility from spreading its wings in the organizations. This would assist them
in devising appropriate interventions to promote courteous behaviors in the workplace keeping in
mind the individual differences among employees. However, regular incivility surveys should be
undertaken to understand the changing profiles of targets as well as perpetrators and plan the
course of action accordingly.
Limitations and scope for the future research
Apart from the demographic and contextual variables examined in this study, there can be many
other factors that might affect the level of instigated and experienced incivility among employees.
For instance, factors related to employees’ personal characteristics (e.g. personality traits, mental
health, physical health, emotional state, etc.), job attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational
citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, trust, etc.) and work environment (e.g. workplace
spirituality, ethical climate, etc.) may have a great impact on the nature and expression of workplace
incivility. Future researchers are recommended to include these variables in the model and assess
their impact on different forms of incivility at work. Further, the present study only focused on the
two forms of workplace incivility (experienced and instigated) to the neglect of others, such as
customer incivility, witnessed incivility and cyber incivility. This provides scope for future research
in this area. Furthermore, the scope of the current study was restricted to the investigation of
workplace incivility in the Indian service sector with a sole focus on academics, hotels, banking and
IT industries. Future researchers are encouraged to explore the prevalence of incivility in different
industrial and organizational settings (such as manufacturing and health care) for a deeper insight
into the phenomenon. In addition, as cultural differences in self-regulation and emotional
expressions have been reported in the past (Bergeron and Schneider, 2005), future researchers are
recommended to examine the cultural (national/organizational/individual levels) influence on
incivility through cross-cultural studies for deeper insights.
Notes
1. https://ilostat.ilo.org/
2. https://www.livemint.com/Industry/jRfllDbFXkNJH1itasp8xI/Indian-companies-often-prefer-
men-over-women-in-hiring-Worl.html
3. https://www.zeebiz.com/india/news-indias-biggest-banks-are-headed-by-women-but-sector-is-
still-male-dominated-1692
4. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/how-india-fared-in-global-gender-gap-report-2021-
11617726598143.html
References
Aldwin, C.M., Sutton, K.J., Chiara, G. and Spiro, A. (1996), “Age differences in stress, coping and
appraisal: findings from the normative aging study”, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 179-188.
IJCMA

26. Andersson, L. and Pearson, C. (1999), “Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M. and Bies, R.J. (2001), “How employees respond to personal offense: the effects of
blame attribution, victim status and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the
workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 52-59.
Bandura, A. (1978), “Social learning theory of aggression”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-29.
Bergeron, N. and Schneider, B.H. (2005), “Explaining cross-national differences in peer-directed
aggression: a quantitative synthesis: aggressive behavior”, Official Journal of the International
Society for Research on Aggression, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 116-137.
Blau, G. and Andersson, L. (2005), “Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 595-614.
Bowles, H.R. and Gelfand, M. (2010), “Status and the evaluation of workplace deviance”, Psychological
Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-54.
Burger, K. (2010), “How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An
international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social
backgrounds”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 140-165.
Caza, B. and Cortina, L. (2007), “From insult to injury: explaining the impact of incivility”, Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 335-350.
Cortina, L. (2008), “Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2009), “Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 272-288.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H. and Langhout, R.D. (2001), “Incivility at the workplace:
incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E.A., Huerta, M. and Magley, V.J. (2013), “Selective incivility as
modern discrimination in organizations evidence and impact”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 1579-1605.
Cortina, L.M., Lonsway, K.A., Magley, V.J., Freeman, L.V., Collinsworth, L.L., Hunter, M. and
Fitzgerald, L.F. (2002), “What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts”, Law
Social Inquiry, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 235-270.
Etodike, C.E. and Ezeh, L.N. (2017), “Perceived workplace incivility: a predictive study of emotional
regulation and marital status among administrative staff of Nigerian universities”, Scholars
Journal of Economics, Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 504-508.
French, R.P. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social
Power, University of MI Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 150-167.
Gabriel, A.S., Butts, M.M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R.L. and Sliter, M.T. (2018), “Further understanding
incivility in the workplace: the effects of gender, agency and communion”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 4, pp. 362-382.
Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H. and Raver, J.L. (2006), “On the nature and importance of cultural tightness
looseness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1225-1244.
Ghosh, R. (2017), “Workplace incivility in Asia- how do we take a socio-cultural perspective?”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 263-267.
Henle, C.A. (2005), “Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice
and personality”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 247-263.
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010), “Most people are not WEIRD”, Nature, Vol. 466
No. 7302, p. 29.
Hofstede, G. (1980), “Culture and organizations”, International Studies of Management and
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 15-41.
Workplace
incivility

27. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Jelavic, S.R., Aleksic, A. and Braje, I.N. (2021), “Behind the curtain: workplace incivility – individual
actors in cultural settings”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 1249-1263.
J
ohannsd
ottir, H.L. and Ólafsson, R.F. (2004), “Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of gender, age
and type of bullying”, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 319-333.
Kang, H.R. and Rowley, C. (2005), “Women in management in South Korea: advancement or
retrenchment?”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 213-231.
Keashley, L., Trott, V. and MacLean, L.M. (1994), “Abusive behavior in the workplace: a preliminary
investigation”, Violence and Victims, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 341-357.
Leiter, M. (2013), Analyzing and Theorizing the Dynamics of the Workplace Incivility Crisis, Springer,
New York, NY.
Lim, S. and Lee, A. (2011), “Work and non-work outcomes of workplace incivility: does family support
help?”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Liu, J., Lewis, G. and Evans, L. (2013), “Understanding aggressive behavior across the life span”,
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 156-168.
Liu, Z., Ge, L. and Peng, W. (2016), “How organizational tenure affects innovative behavior?”, Nankai
Business Review International, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 99-126.
Loh, J.M.I., Thorsteinsson, E.B. and Loi, N.M. (2021), “Workplace incivility and work outcomes: cross-
cultural comparison between Australian and Singaporean employees”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 305-329.
McNeel, S. (1994), “‘College teaching and student moral development’”, in Rest and D. Narvaez (Eds), Moral
Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27-49.
MacLennan, H.L. (2015), “Incivility by degree: the influence of educational attainment on workplace
civility”, Conflict Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Cultural variation in the self-concept”, The Self:
Interdisciplinary Approaches, Springer Publication, New York, NY, pp. 18-48.
Meek, W. (2012), “Universal relationship needs the importance of companionship, affection and
support”, Psychology Today, 16 December, available at: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/
notes-self/201212/universal-relationship-needs
Mehra, S.K. (2011), “Cost of workplace incivility”, Economic Times, 4th November, available at: https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/cost-of-workplace-incivility/articleshow/10595749.cms
Miller, N.E. (1941), “The frustration-aggression hypothesis”, Psychological Review, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 337-342.
Miner, K.N., Settles, I.H., Pratt-Hyatt, J.S. and Brady, C.C. (2012), “Experiencing incivility in
organizations: the buffering effects of emotional and organizational support”, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 340-372.
Montgomery, K., Kane, K. and Vance, C.M. (2004), “Accounting for differences in norms of respect: a
study of assessments of incivility through the lenses of race and gender”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 248-268.
Moon, C. and Sanchez-Rodriguez, A. (2021), “Cultural influences on normative reactions to incivility:
comparing individuals from South Korea and Spain”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 292-314.
Moon, C., Weick, M. and Uskul, A.K. (2018), “Cultural variation in individuals’ responses to incivility
by perpetrators of different rank: the mediating role of descriptive and injunctive norms”,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 472-489.
Moon, C., Morais, C., de Moura, G.R. and Uskul, A.K. (2020), “The role of organizational structure and
deviant status in employees’ reactions to and acceptance of workplace deviance”, International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 315-339.
IJCMA

28. Morrison, F.J., Smith, L. and Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995), “Education and cognitive development: a
natural experiment”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 789-799.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2013), “Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance?”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 305-314.
Norwich, B. (1987), “Self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: a study of their relation”, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 384-387.
Oaklander, M. (2016), “Old people are happier than people in their 20s”, Time Health (Mental health),
24th August, available at: https://time.com/4464811/aging-happiness-stress-anxiety-depression/
Pearson, C.M. and Porath, C.L. (2005), “On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: no
time for nice?’ think again”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Pearson, C. and Andersson, L. and Porath, C. (2000), “Assessing and attacking workplace incivility”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 123-137.
Perez-Delgado, E. and Oliver, J. (1995), “The influence of age and formal education on moral reasoning
in a sample from Spain”, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 65-72.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2012), “Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and
the impact of hierarchical status”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 326-357.
Porath, C., Overbeck, J. and Pearson, C. (2008), “Picking up the gauntlet: how individuals respond to
status challenges”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1945-1980.
Power, J.L., Brotheridge, C.M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buz
ady, Z. and
Nnedumm, A.U.O. (2013), “Acceptability of workplace bullying: a comparative study on six
continents”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 374-380.
Pratto, F. and Stewart, A.L. (2011), “‘Social dominance theory’”, in Christie, D.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Peace Psychology, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Rayner, C. (1997), “The incidence of workplace bullying”, Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 199-208.
Rest, J. (1994), ‘“Background: Theory and Research’”, in Rest, J. and Narvaez, D. (Eds), Moral Development and
the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, Lawrenee Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1-26.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. and Fhoma, S. (1999), Post Conventional Moral Thinking: A neo-
Kohlbergian Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008), “Evidence in management and organizational
science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses”, Academy
of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 475-515.
Sackett, P.R., Berry, C.M., Wiemann, S.A. and Laczo, R.M. (2006), “Citizenship and counterproductive work
behavior: clarifying relationships between the two domains”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 441-464.
Sakurai, K. (2021), “Changes in the frequency of coworker incivility: roles of work hours, workplace sex ratio,
supervisor leadership style and incivility”, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 177-189.
Schilpzand, P., Pater, De, I.E. and Erez, A. (2016), “Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and
agenda for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 64-80.
Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a punching bag: the effect of multiple sources of
incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 121-139.
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K. and McInnerney, J. (2010), “How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator
between customer incivility and employee outcomes”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 468-481.
Workplace
incivility

29. Staines, G.L. (1980), “Spillover versus compensation: a review of the literature on the relationship
between work and non-work”, Human Relations, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 111-129.
Torelli, C.J., Leslie, L.M., To, C. and Kim, S. (2020), “Power and status across cultures”, Current Opinion
in Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 12-17.
Torres, E.N., van Niekerk, M. and Orlowski, M. (2017), “Customer and employee incivility and its causal effects
in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 48-66.
Welbourne, J.L., Gangadharan, A. and Sariol, A.M. (2015), “Ethnicity and cultural values as predictors
of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 205-217.
Young, K.A., Hassan, S. and Hatmaker, D.M. (2021), “Towards understanding workplace incivility: gender,
ethical leadership and personal control”, Public Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 31-52.
Further reading
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A. and Collins, K. (2002), Aggravating Circumstances: A Status Report
on Rudeness in America, Public Agenda, New York, NY.
About the authors
Dr Richa Chaudhary is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management and Organizational
Behavior in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Patna. She obtained her PhD from the Department of Management Studies, IIT Roorkee in 2013. She
has published a number of research papers in international journals of repute like Journal of Business
Ethics, Personality and Individual Differences, Personnel Review, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Management Decision, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management. Her current research interests include work
engagement, corporate social responsibility, authentic leadership, multilevel studies and corporate
sustainability. Richa Chaudhary is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: richa.
chaudhary18@gmail.com
Madhu Lata is a Research Scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Patna. She completed her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in
Psychology from Patna University. She was the recipient of Gold Medal in her undergraduate and
postgraduate program. Her PhD work is on understanding the relationship between workplace
spirituality and incivility at work. She has published her work in Journal of Business Ethics and
Personality and Individual Differences Journal.
Mantasha Firoz is currently a fourth-year doctoral student at Indian Institute of Technology Patna,
India. Her area of interest revolves around emotions at work. Currently, she is working on the
antecedents, outcomes and boundary conditions of workplace loneliness in the Indian business
organizations. Her work has been published in Personnel Review, Evidence-based HRM and
Management Research Review. She has presented her research work at several international
conferences such as Academy of Management Annual Meeting and European Group of
Organizational Studies.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
IJCMA
View publication stats
View publication stats