Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incivility’s Relationship with Workplace Outcomes: Enactment as a Boundary Condition in Two Samples

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current two-sample investigation explores the role of enactment as a boundary condition in the relationship between experienced incivility and workplace outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior [OCB], and turnover intent). We integrate the tenets of the transactional model of stress and sensemaking theory to explain why enactment is a psychological sensemaking capability that can neutralize the adverse effects of experienced incivility on workplace outcomes. The results across two samples of data (nSample 1 = 156; nSample 2 = 620) supported the study hypotheses by demonstrating that experienced incivility had stronger adverse effects on employees’ job satisfaction, OCBs, and turnover intent for employees who reported lower levels of enactment than employees who reported higher levels of enactment. This study’s results make three important contributions to theory and research. First, we make an empirical contribution by examining enactment as a psychological sensemaking capability that can neutralize the adverse effects of experienced incivility on workplace outcomes. Second, we make a theoretical contribution by integrating the tenets of the transactional model of stress and sensemaking theory in a novel way that explains why enactment is a psychological sensemaking capability that can neutralize the adverse effects of stress on strain. Third, we demonstrate that enactment is the boundary condition that explains why incivility does not have universally adverse effects on employees’ outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J., Carlson, K., Edwards, J., & Spector, P. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernerth, J., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69, 229–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39, 48–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, L., Connelly, B., & Geeza, A. (2012). Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait–multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19, 915–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L., Magley, V., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G., & Shaw, J. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 26, 446–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doshy, P., & Wang, J. (2014). Workplace incivility: What do targets say about it? American Journal of Management, 14, 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. (2008). Seven deadly myths of testing moderation in organizational research. In C. Lance & R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 145–166). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M., Ehrhart, K., Roesch, S., Chung-Herrera, B., Nadler, K., & Bradshaw, K. (2009). Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 900–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, L., & Han, X. (in press). Just the right amount of ethics inspires creativity: A cross-level investigation of ethical leadership, intrinsic motivation, and employee creativity. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3297-1

  • Ferris, G., Bowen, M., Treadway, D., Hochwarter, W., Hall, A., & Perrewé, P. (2006). The assumed linearity of organizational phenomena: Implications for occupational stress and well-being. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 5, 203–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, S., Lazarus, R., Dunkelschetter, C., Delongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieder, R., Hochwarter, W., & DeOrtentiis, P. (2015). Attenuating the negative effects of abusive supervision: The role of proactive voice behavior and resource management ability. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 821–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2010). Unethical and unwell: Decrements in well-being and unethical activity at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Arenas, A. (2015). Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S., Rentfrow, P., & Swann, W. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. (2014). On the merits of student-recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2012). Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enactment’s moderating role on the relationship between perceived narcissistic supervision and work outcomes. Human Relations, 65, 335–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holba, A. M., & Fritz, J. M. H. (2013). Professional civility: Communicative virtue at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 645–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Curran, P., Keeney, J., Poposki, E., & DeShon, R. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, M. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Cortina, L., & Magley, V. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In E. Locke & M. Dunnette (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (in press). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7

  • Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., III, Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Subordinate social adaptability and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 732–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R. and Martinko, M. J. (in press). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315573997

  • Mackey, J. D., & Perrewé, P. L. (2014). The AAA (appraisals, attributions, adaptation) model of job stress: The critical role of self-regulation. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 258–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 477–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 637–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, L., & Gross, S. (2015). Episodes of incivility between subordinates and supervisors: Examining the role of self-control and time with an interaction-record diary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1096–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R., Koberg, C., & MacArthur, A. (1984). The psychology of the withdrawal process: A cross-validational test of Mobley’s intermediate linkages model of turnover in two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, N. (1995). Enactment. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of organizational behavior (pp. 155–156). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niehoff, B., & Moorman, R. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D., Podsakoff, P., & Podsakoff, N. (2011). Expanding the criterion domain to include organizational citizenship behavior: Implications for employee selection. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 281–323). Washington, DC: APA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about it. New York: Portfolio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penney, L., & Spector, P. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R., & Vandenberg, R. (2010). Longitudinal research: Theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N., Whiting, S., Podsakoff, P., & Blume, B. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 326–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91, 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, B., & John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, T., & Hershcovis, M. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samnani, A.-K. (2013). The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The role of culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2016). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 537–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & 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, 33, 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sliter, M., Withrow, S., & Jex, S. (2015). It happened, or you thought it happened? Examining the perception of workplace incivility based on personality characteristics. International Journal of Stress Management, 22, 24–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P., & Brannick, M. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P., & Jex, S. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H., & Euwema, M. (2010). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leadership and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., Fleischman, G., & Godkin, L. (in press). Villains, victims, and verisimilitudes: An exploratory study of unethical corporate values, bullying experiences, psychopathy, and selling professionals’ ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2993-6

  • Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., & Kidwell, R. (2011). Corporate ethical values, group creativity, job satisfaction and turnover intention: The impact of work context on work response. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1998). Introductory essay-improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 543–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 480–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 93–135). New York: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, X., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L.-Z., & Ma, J. (in press). The effect of workplace negative gossip on employee proactive behavior in China: The moderating role of traditionality. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-3006-5

  • Wu, L.-Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R. K., Kwan, H. K., & He, X. (2014). Hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the study authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Lowder Business Building, Auburn University, 405 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Jeremy D. Mackey

  2. Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    John D. Bishoff, Shanna R. Daniels, Wayne A. Hochwarter & Gerald R. Ferris

  3. Australia Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia

    Wayne A. Hochwarter

Authors
  1. Jeremy D. Mackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John D. Bishoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shanna R. Daniels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wayne A. Hochwarter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerald R. Ferris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy D. Mackey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All of the study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

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.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mackey, J.D., Bishoff, J.D., Daniels, S.R. et al. Incivility’s Relationship with Workplace Outcomes: Enactment as a Boundary Condition in Two Samples. J Bus Ethics 155, 513–528 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3492-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3492-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation