The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Workplace incivility: a Workplace

incivility
literature review
Anselmo Ferreira Vasconcelos
Independent Researcher, S~ao Paulo, Brazil

Abstract
Received 7 November 2019
Purpose – There have been strides in workplace incivility (WI), but in what direction, angles and theoretical Revised 22 March 2020
streams are they taking place? In light of it, the purpose of this review is to analyze the overall WI research 26 April 2020
output yielded in the initial decades of this century. Accepted 15 May 2020
Design/methodology/approach – This investigation searched exclusively for empirical articles written in
English that matched the terms incivility and WI in the websites of prominent peer-review publications
covering the period of 19 years (i.e. 2000–2019). As a result, 93 peer-reviewed empirical studies were properly
gathered and classified.
Findings – WI is one of the most relevant topics in OB studies under scrutiny in this moment. Corroborating
such a perception is the huge amount of outlets that have been publishing about WI. In this sense, it is a topic
that has gained strong interdisciplinary status, given the manifested interest of very distinct areas. Cross-
sectional studies have prevailed in terms of method preferences, yet other approaches have been used. Of
noteworthy is the shortage of qualitative and meta-analytic studies. Data provided evidence that a very limited
number of nations (only 18 countries) have been investigated and it is not exactly surprising that the United
States be the target of the majority of studies in this field. The antecedents and consequences of WI are the
major focus of the investigations. But I found some evidence that that WI has been tested as performing the role
of measure, mediator and moderator.
Research limitations/implications – It focused exclusively on peer-review journals and articles written in
English.
Originality/value – This endeavor contributes to the theory of WI by encompassing crucial aspects such as
time horizon, major outlets, study types, country-level output, samples features, constructs perused, theoretical
function of WI and research outcomes. In addition, it points out new potential research streams.
Keywords Disrespectful behavior, Organizational incivility, Lack of respect, Rudeness, Suffering, WI
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
There is a consensual view in which incivility is seen as a salient issue, as well as it is noticed
everywhere. For these reasons, incivility is a problem that truly matters (Pearson et al., 2000;
Pearson and Porath, 2004). In fact, evidence suggests that workplace incivility (WI) has yielded
increasing costs to both individuals and organizations likewise (Porath et al., 2015). Broadly
speaking, human relationships are not always characterized by harmony and calmness.
Consequently, the manifestations of incivility among people within organizations and against
external stakeholders like consumers are very common to identify. To a large extent, such
situations are related to unpleasant experiences, that is, the cornerstone of WI. Unlike the
workplace civility that aims to shape a climate of mutual respect at work settings and shows
concerns geared toward others, WI is associated with a set of rude or discourteous acts (i.e.
demonstration of low-intensity deviant behavior and ambiguous intent), not to mention the
lack of regard for others (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2005). In summary, “It
follows, then, that workplace incivility involves acting with disregard for others in the
workplace, in violation of workplace norms for respect” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999, p. 455).
Similarly, Zauderer (2002, p. 38) argued that WI brings about disrespectful behavior that
culminates to undermine the dignity and self-esteem of employees, as well as causing
unnecessary suffering. Very often WI is construed through a range of misbehaviors such as
International Journal of Workplace
Health Management
The author is very grateful to Dr. Maria Karanika-Murray, Dr. Christine Ipsen and an anonymous © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8351
reviewer for the comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-11-2019-0137
IJWHM taking credit for other’s efforts, engagement in spreading rumors about colleagues, emotional
tirades, angry outbursts, the act of leaving office equipment jammed, yelling, screaming,
verbal attacks, sending rude emails to coworkers, neglecting to acknowledge subordinates,
leaving snippy voice mail messages, exclusion from important work activities, interrupting
others, disrupting meetings, the behavior of refusing to work collaboratively, overt temper
tantrums, name-calling, discounting input from others, condescending speech, rudeness
toward others, reproving workers on email, showing inability to empathize, withholding
important information and damaging coworker’s reputation (Pearson et al., 2005;
Felblinger, 2008).
On the other hand, it is recognized that incivility becomes a cascade downward move in
which the instigator is usually an upper echelon member than the target. Accordingly, WI
may be harmful to the targets, their fellow members, their friends, their families and the
organization as a whole (Pearson et al., 2000). Due to the negative variation that embraces
social interaction, WI usually affects the participation, individual development of the target,
witnesses and other organizational actors as well as the innovation processes may be stifled
(Pearson et al., 2001). WI is also conducive to job stress, lower job satisfaction and
psychological distress (Cortina et al., 2001; Caza and Cortina, 2007). Further, research by
Porath and Pearson (2013) identified abundant side effects caused by WI such as intentional
decreasing in work effort, time spent at work and quality of work. In addition, people stated to
lose work time worrying about the incident and avoiding the offender. Findings also
identified workers’ declining performance, commitment to the organization, leaving the job
due to uncivil treatment and taking their frustration out on customers. In a related vein, other
omnipresent issues of corporate life may trigger WI. For example, WI may be derived from
corporate change initiatives, downsizing, restructuring, mergers and technology, given that
such actions may create angry, tension, fear, negative emotions and, accordingly, erode the
relationships among employees (Pearson et al., 2005). In essence, incivility has been theorized
as a component of a broader framework of workplace abuse (Johnson and Indvik, 2001).
van Jaarsveld et al. (2010) noted that research has obtained meaningful insights related
specifically to the antecedents and consequences of WI. Notwithstanding, there is room to
explore other relevant aspects potentially associated with WI. In this sense, previous
literature reviews revealed that workplace bullying and incivility are strongly connected to
problems of interpersonal behavior (Hodgins et al., 2014), while other work focused on the
types of incivility, namely: experienced, witnessed and instigated incivility (Schilpzand et al.,
2016a, b). Also of note is Cortina et al.’s (2017) review, which addressed on the incidence of WI
(targets/instigators) and the impact of WI by the angle of stigmatized identities, cognitive and
emotional processes and job-related/situational factors, among other things. However, there
is a shortage of studies focusing basically on the key empirical issues of WI theory, i.e. a
broader review that may capture its major nuances and peculiarities. There have been strides
in WI, but in what direction, angles and theoretical streams are they taking place? In light of it,
the purpose of this review is to analyze the overall WI research output yielded in the initial
decades of this century. Keeping it in mind that this endeavor intends to contribute to the
theory by encompassing crucial aspects such as time horizon, major outlets, study types,
country-level output, samples features, constructs perused, theoretical functions of WI and
research outcomes. In addition, it points out new potential research streams.

Method
Scholars argued that one may find the current state-of-the-art of a topic by reviewing its
germane literature (Patton, 2002). Indeed, such endeavor allows to map out the area (Marshall
and Rossman, 2006), as well as expanding the knowledge frontiers. Accordingly, this
investigation searched exclusively for empirical articles written in English that matched the
terms incivility and WI in the websites of prominent scientific publications (i.e. peer reviewed)
such as Emerald, Taylor and Francis, Google Scholar, Elsevier, Wisley and Sage by covering Workplace
the period of 19 years (i.e. 2000–2019). As previously highlighted, such a procedure aimed to incivility
have an overview about what the scientific research has been yielded on this topic in the
current century. Afterward, all data were carefully analyzed in order to avoid redundancy.
Taken as a whole, such step initially scrutinized 26,869 published texts (summaries). Next,
it was sifted the outcomes that matched the words aforementioned and elicited only those
texts related to WI. In this phase, a painstaking reading was undertaken so as to classify the
stuff. As a result, 93 peer-reviewed empirical studies were properly gathered and classified.
More specifically, each study was pigeonholed taking into account year of publication,
journal title, country-level origin, sample, methods, constructs investigated, theoretical
functions of WI and major results (a summary can be seen in Table 1). Thus, such path
provides a landscape about what is occurring in this relevant area of knowledge, particularly
in the first decades of this century.

Results
Outcomes by year and journal titles
Overall, data suggests that the academic interest on WI is growing, especially from 2015
onward (see Figure 1). Despite some decrease in terms of research output, the peak was
certainly reached in 2018, which encompassed 22.8% of the total sample. It is important to
point out that this literature review partially covered the year of 2019 (until around August).
Taking it into account, it is likely that the result of that year was more robust. In fact, I found
in the phase of collecting data that at least more four studies were available on the online
version. On the other hand, a sizeable number of outlets have been giving room to the topic of
WI (see Table 2). Rather, evidence identified that at least 46 distinct journals have already
published about it and most of them are dedicated to management studies, I/O psychology,
health, workplace spirituality and marketing. Nevertheless, researches’ preferences have
been in favor of titles such as Journal of Organizational Behavior (8.6%), Journal of Applied
Psychology (7.5%), Work and Stress (6.5%), Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (5.4%),
and Advances in Developing Human Resources, Journal of Management and Organization
Management Journal (it dedicated a special issue on WI) with 4.3% each, respectively.
Therefore, such interdisciplinary interest confers great acknowledgment and status to WI
theory. In light of it, WI has consistently gained impetus, given that it involves a very
sensitive issue of the contemporary corporate life, which affects millions of workers
worldwide.

Country-level analysis
Not surprisingly, United States (see Table 3) is the target of the overwhelming majority of
studies concerning WI (i.e. 55.9%). Therefore, North America is much beyond and above the
other countries in terms of the study of this topic. Subsequently, both Australia and Canada
share the second ranking position of WI studies. Next, data revealed that this subject were
slowly gaining ground in China, Pakistan, South Korea and Sweden (3.2% each, respectively).
Findings also showed that only two cross-country studies were carried out focusing on
Australia/New Zealand and United States/Canada, respectively.
Taken together, the findings indicated that only 18 countries had conducted
investigations about WI. This result was a clear indicator of the research potential to be
fulfilled. In this way, it is noteworthy the absence of investigations in South America’s
countries, not to mention the few studies that were undertaken in Europe, Middle East and
Africa, for example. Despite the increasing research interest in WI, the findings suggest that
scholars have the opportunity to enhance even more the knowledge about the effects and the
IJWHM
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Cortina et al. 1,167 public sector Incivility, job-related
(2001) employees outcomes, psychological and
health-related outcomes and
extrinsic organizational
commitment
Penney and 299 (Students) (1) Job stressor and
Spector (2005) workplace incivility on
employee satisfaction and
CWB; and (2) to replicate
findings from previous
research regarding the
relationships between job
stressors, negative affectivity
and CWB
Martin and 368 (Adults) Uncivil Workplace Behavior Measure
Hine (2005) Questionnaire (UWBQ)
Blau and 162 Instigated workplace
Andersson incivility, experienced
(2005) workplace incivility,
interpersonal deviance,
distributive, procedural,
interactional justice, job
satisfaction, affective
occupational commitment,
job insecurity and work
exhaustion
Caza and 1,043 (Students) Top-down incivility, lateral
Cortina (2007) incivility, perceived injustice,
perceived social ostracism,
psychological distress,
institutional satisfaction,
academic disengagement and
academic performance
Lim et al. 1,158 employees Experiences of incivility
(2008) (Study 1) and 271 (personal and workgroup),
employees (Study 2) job satisfaction, mental
health, turnover intentions
and physical health
Table 1.
Review of empirical
studies on workplace
incivility
Theoretical function
of incivility Major conclusions
Antecedent Findings showed that 71% of
employees had some experience
of workplace incivility in the
previous 5 years. The majority of
instigators were fellow court
personnel
Antecedent Workplace incivility was
identified as a source of job stress
Exploratory factor analysis
yielded four factors related to
hostility, privacy invasion,
exclusionary behavior and
gossiping
Consequences Results indicated that instigated
workplace incivility is distinct
from experienced workplace
incivility. In addition, Time 1
measures of distributive justice
and job satisfaction were
negatively related to instigated
workplace incivility, yet work
exhaustion was positively
related to such kind of incivility.
These antecedents explained
workplace incivility beyond
Time 2
Antecedent Uncivil conduct triggered
perceptions of social ostracism,
regardless of the status of the
incivility instigator and also gave
rise to perceptions of injustice.
Furthermore, top-down incivility
was conducive to perceptions of
injustice and lateral or peer-
instigated incivility had only a
modest link to perceptions of
injustice
Antecedent In Study 1, direct experiences of
incivility were linked with lower
supervisor, coworker and work
satisfaction. Further, supervisor
and work satisfaction were
associated with greater
intentions to quit and poorer
mental health. Of note, job
satisfaction mediated the impact
of incivility on mental health and
turnover intention, but only
partially given that incivility also
had a direct link to both
outcomes. As for the results of
study 2, it validated and
extended the proposed incivility
(continued )
 Theoretical function
Workplace
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Hutton and 184 (healthcare staff) Workplace incivility and Antecedent Results indicated that workplace
Gates (2008) productivity incivility from patients and
management yielded a greater
impact on employees’
productivity than workplace
incivility from other sources
Cortina and 1,711 (Sample 1: Instigator characteristics (job Antecedent Incivility led to mildly negative
Magley (2009) University Employees), position) and social power appraisals in targets (e.g.
671 attorneys (Sample 2) relative to the target appraising the behavior as
and 1,167 employees of a (supervisory power) insensitive, annoying,
large federal judicial frustrating and bothersome).
circuit (Sample 3) Further, the three major
characteristics of incivility were
violation, ambiguous intent and
mildly negative appraisal
Milam et al. 179 employees and Incivility, personality traits Antecedent Agreeableness trait accounted
(2009) coworkers and provocative victim for the target of incivility in the
workplace. Further, results
suggested that for individuals
high on neuroticism, perceived
incivility may be derived from a
more negative general
assessment of a neurotic
individual’s surroundings
Reio and 402 workers Selected demographics, Mediator Organizational incivility showed
Ghosh (2009) workplace adaptation, to have a negative influence on
employee affect, incivility both physical health and job
and physical health and job satisfaction
satisfaction
Griffin (2010) 34,209 employees from Incivility, dependent variable Antecedent and Findings revealed a direct
179 organizations (leave) and interactional moderator negative effect on individual
justice climate (organizational outcomes; besides, incivility
incivility) environment showed to
moderate the individual-level
stressor–strain relationship
van Jaarsveld 307 service employees Customer incivility, job Antecedent Overall, it was found that both
et al. (2010) demands, emotional (Customer) and perceived job demands and
exhaustion and employee Consequences emotional exhaustion played a
incivility (Employee) role of the mediators
(sequentially) between customer
incivility and employees’ uncivil
treatment of customers
Porath et al. Study 1: 73 students; Incivility, anger and Antecedent Findings confirmed that
(2010) Study 2: 117; Study 3: generalization (studies 1, 2 incivility yielded negative
113; and Study 4: 59 and 3); In study 4 was generalizations, particularly
manipulated the source of when customers witnessed
incivility, whether another employee–employee incivility
employee (employee–
employee incivility) or a
customer (customer–
employee incivility)
Smith et al. 117 Structural empowerment, Antecedent Results indicated that structural
(2010) psychological empowerment, empowerment, psychological
workplace incivility and empowerment and workplace
affective commitment incivility were important
predictors of affective
commitment in newly-graduated
nurses

(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Ghosh et al. 81 Negative mentoring
(2011) experience, negative affect,
instigated incivility, negative
reciprocity and task
interdependence
Reio (2011) 507 employees Demographics, personality
traits, situational constraints,
emotional reaction,
behavioral response
(incivility) and organizational
commitment/satisfaction
Reio and 272 employees computer Workplace Engagement
Sanders-Reio sciences company Scale (Shuck) and modified
(2011) versions of the Workplace
Incivility Scale
Trudel and 289 employees Conflict management styles Consequences
Reio (2011) (integrating, accommodating,
avoiding, compromising and
dominating) and workplace
incivility
Taylor et al. 221 job incumbents Incivility, conscientiousness, Antecedent
(2012) affective commitment,
citizenship performance and
control variables
Sliter et al. 120 bank tellers Customer incivility, coworker Antecedent
(2012) incivility, withdrawal
behavior (absenteeism and
tardiness) and sales
performance
Ferguson 190 job incumbents and Coworker incivility, target
(2012) their partners marital satisfaction, partner
marital satisfaction and
partner family-to-work
conflict and on how the
transmission of stress from
the workplace to the family
domain
Porath and 800 managers and The prevalence, types,
Person (2013) employees causes, costs and cures of
incivility at work
Naimon et al. 102 students Workplace spirituality,
(2013) negative affectivity, locus of
control, agreeableness,
civility scale and social
desirability
Meier and 197 employees Lack of reciprocity,
Semmer (2013) narcissism, anger and
workplace incivility
Table 1.
Theoretical function
of incivility Major conclusions
Consequences It was identified that negative
affect (i.e. experienced by the
proteges) mediated the interplay
between proteges’ perceptions of
mentor’s distancing behavior
and the frequency in which
proteges instigated incivility
against their mentors
Mediator Data indicated that in both
models the incivility variables
were strongly linked with the
dependent variables, but also
exerted a role of mediators
between frustration,
organizational commitment/
satisfaction
Consequences Findings showed that 78% of the
participants were target of
supervisor incivility, and 81% of
coworker incivility at least “a few
times” in the previous year
Results showed that conflict
styles led to incivility
Authors found support for a
model linking workplace
incivility to citizenship
performance through the
mediating effect of affective
commitment and the moderating
influence of conscientiousness
Findings showed that customer
incivility may affect employees’
withdrawal (i.e. absenteeism and
tardiness) and performance, but
coworker incivility had a main
effect on absenteeism
Antecedent Results indicated that stress of
incivility was not left in the
workplace but carried to home
(i.e. to the family domain)
affecting target’s relationships
with family members and then
crossed back into the work
domain of the target’s partner
through family-to-work conflict
Antecedent Incivility is costly, and few
organizations recognize or take
action to stop it
Consequences Findings showed that
individuals that had higher
perceptions of workplace
spirituality were less likely to feel
incivility at work
Consequences Data suggested that lack of
reciprocity was positively related
to anger, which was positively
related to workplace incivility
against (i.e. coworkers and
supervisors)
(continued )
 Theoretical function
Workplace
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Chen et al. 235 employees and their Workplace incivility, Antecedent Authors found (in two samples)
(2013) supervisors (Study 1) and narcissism, work evidence that work engagement
204 (Study 2) employees engagement and task mediated the effect of incivility
and their supervisors performance on task performance, especially
for individuals that tend to be
highly narcissistic
Ghosh et al. 420 Supervisor incivility, co- Antecedent Results indicated that supervisor
(2013) worker incivility, incivility was directly associated
socialization-related learning with turnover intent as well as
and turnover intent they indirectly reduced the
likelihood of employees engaging
in socialization-related learning
Gedro and - Performance, organizational Antecedent The development of a training
Wang (2013) context (management program
philosophy, organizational
culture), social systems and
social interactions, coworker
beliefs, mental disorders,
moral maturity and
psychological contract
Mullen and 109 customer service Customer mistreatment, Consequences Findings revealed that call center
Kelloway representatives employee retaliation and customer service employees may
(2013) psychological strain also engage in retaliatory
behavior, particularly when they
feel to be treated unjustly by
customers. Further, such a
relationship was stronger when
employees reported high
psychological strain
Doshy and 11 participants from Four categories: position and Antecedent and ways Handling incivility relies on the
Wang (2014) diverse professional personality, negative the targets cope with participants’ personal attributes
backgrounds attributes of the perpetrator, uncivil behaviors and the impact it has caused on
impact on the victim and them
organizations’ willful
blindness
Beattie and 130 customer service Incivility, stress, work Antecedent Data indicated that participants
Griffin (2014) employees engagement, perceived tended to have higher levels of
supervisor support and the stress on days when they were
personal resource of core self- treated in an uncivil way
evaluation
Lee and 239 employee–coworker Leadership, interpersonal Consequences Evidence showed that active
Jensen (2014) dyads fairness and workplace constructive leadership
incivility decreased incidence of workplace
incivility through its positive
impact on fairness perceptions
Walker et al. 430 encounters with Customer incivility, entity Consequences Findings showed that employees
(2014) customers and 59 civility, negative affectivity tended to respond to event
employees and employee incivility customer incivility as a function
of their accumulated entity
perceptions of incivility in
customer interactions
Holm et al. 2,871 employees Workplace incivility, Consequences Results suggested that
(2015) organizational factors (job workplace incivility was
demands, social support from connected to both instigated
supervisor/colleagues and incivility and negative outcomes
control) and negative (i.e. in the form of reduced well-
outcomes being, job satisfaction, turnover
intentions and sleeping
problems)

(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Arnold and 215 employees from At Time 1 was collected
Walsh (2015) service industry measures of independent
variables (customer
incivility), control variables
(negative affectivity and
gender) and one moderator
(transformational
leadership). One month later,
measures of two moderators
(meaning and perspective
taking) and the outcome
(psychological well-being)
were collected as well
Meier and 131 employees Experienced and instigated
Gross (2015) incivility, state exhaustion
and trait self-control
Sliter and 208 firefighters Time 1: victim incivility; Antecedent
Boyd (2015) Time 2: burnout, physical
symptoms, work engagement
and trait empathy
Loi et al. (2015) 317 employees Tolerance to workplace
incivility, work withdrawal
and gender
Sears and 461 employees Psychological contract
Humiston violation, leader-member
(2015) exchange, perceived
organizational support and
workplace incivility
Hur et al. 309 department store Customer incivility, surface
(2015) sales employee acting, emotional exhaustion
and customer orientation
Reich and 75 (Study 1) and 48 (Study Witnessed incivility,
Hershcovis 2) negative affect toward the
(2015) instigator, attitude toward
the instigator and evaluation
of the instigator
Table 1.
Theoretical function
of incivility Major conclusions
Antecedent Meaning and perspective taking
(Customer) and were not identified as moderators
Consequences of the relationship between
(employees’ customer incivility and employee
psychological well- well-being
being)
Antecedent Evidence indicated that a
detrimental effect of experienced
incivility from one’s supervisor
on a target’s behavior against the
supervisor were short-lived,
vanishing after about 2 h. In a
nutshell, exhausted targets tend
to retaliate
Data supported the conclusion
that victim incivility was
positively related to burnout,
physical symptoms and
absenteeism. In case of a victim
be rude to an empathetic
firefighter that firefighter would
be able to understand,
cognitively, what the victim was
experiencing
Antecedent Findings revealed that women
tend to tolerate workplace
incivility. Concerning males, it
was not found evidence between
tolerance for workplace incivility
and work withdrawal
Consequences Results indicated that
psychological contract violation
predicted higher levels of uncivil
workplace behavior and
especially among employees that
perceived high-quality social
exchange relationships with their
supervisors and their employer
Antecedent Evidence indicated a full
negative relationship between
customer incivility and customer
orientation mediated through
surface acting and emotional
exhaustion respectively
Antecedent Authors found that by
witnessing incivility negatively
influenced observers’ work-
related assessment of the
instigator. Overall, it was
identified that observers’
emotions, attitudes and
behaviors are influenced by the
negative relationships between
instigators and targets
(continued )

Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Schilpzand 289 undergraduate Experienced incivility,
et al. (2016b) business students shared incivility, rumination,
task-related stress,
psychological withdrawal
behavior and self-blame
Torkelson 512 employees Organizational aspects (job
et al. (2016) insecurity, social support
from co-workers, social
support from supervisors, job
demands, control, and
exposure to organizational
change), experienced
workplace incivility (from co-
workers and supervisors)
and perpetrated workplace
incivility
Matthews and 275 (Study 1), 1,515 (Study Study 1: Intent, harmfulness, Measure
Ritter (2016) 2), 897 (Study 3), 278 experienced incivility, and
(Study 4) gender; Study 2: experienced
incivility, civility norms, role
overload, affective burnout,
interpersonal deviance,
organizational deviance,
abusive supervision and
supervisor undermining;
Study 3: experienced
incivility, overall justice,
civility norms, intrinsic
motivation, ostracism and
deviance; Study 4:
experienced incivility and
counterproductive workplace
behaviors
Paulin and 637 employees Job-related affective well-
Griffin (2016) being, workplace incivility,
team incivility climate and
competitive team norms
McCarthy 15 organizational The extent to which incivility Consequences
(2016) professionals is an issue at work (i.e.
perceived impact on
relationships, attitudes, and
work quality; the context and
situational factors that
contribute to its occurrence
and severity; and (3) the
potential differences between
employees’ experience of
rudeness through electronic
versus face-to-face mediums
Cho et al. 239 restaurant frontline Customer incivility,
(2016) service employees supervisor incivility,
coworker incivility,
emotional exhaustion,
perceived organizational
support, emotion regulation
and perceived service
performance
Theoretical function
Workplace
of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Antecedent Findings showed that the
experience of sharing the
experience of uncivil treatment
with another target significantly
reduced its negative
consequences
Consequences Authors found a direct
relationship between the
perpetration of incivility and the
organizational variables, namely,
organizational change, job
insecurity, low social support
from co-workers and job
demands (i.e. instigated
incivility). The strongest
relationship linked experienced
incivility from co-workers and
instigated incivility
Results identified a validation of
a concise, psychometrically
sound, measure of experienced
workplace incivility
Consequences Evidence suggested that team
incivility climate appear to be a
direct negative relationship with
employee well-being (over and
above the individual-level effect
of incivility)
Findings revealed that incivility
(perceptions) was experienced regularly in a
wide-variety of professions and
organizations; (2) it yielded
negative consequences; (3) there
were tangible differences
between rude email and rude
face-to-face encounters
Antecedent Data confirmed that customer
incivility was the most powerful
factor conducive to influencing
emotional exhaustion,
particularly in the context of
restaurant frontline service
providers
(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Lanzo et al. 168 employees Workaholism, psychological
(2016) capital, stress and incivility
Itzkovich 648 employees Work incivility, job
(2016) insecurity and employee
deviance
Rahim and 223 triads (employed Workplace incivility, job
Cosby (2016) undergraduate business performance, job burnout
administration students and turnover intention
their colleagues in
organizations, and their
common supervisors)
Paulin and 1,110 employees and 50 Incivility climate,
Griffin (2017) work teams (3 samples) experienced incivility,
interactional justice,
distributive justice, job
satisfaction and turnover
intention
Ali et al. (2016) 59 job seekers (Study 1), Study 1: goal orientation,
66 job seekers at time 3 attributions of incivility, and
(Study 2), 107 students job search self-efficacy and to
completed the Time 3 gain inductive exploratory
survey (Study 3) evidence of the nature and
perceived cause of job search
incivility; Study 2 and Study
3: goal orientation (time 0),
perceived incivility (Time 1),
job search self-efficacy (time
2 and 3), and job search
intensity
Sharifirad 312 healthcare providers Leader’s incivility, team’s
(2016) creative performance,
collaborative climate, and
knowledge-sharing intention
among team members
Welbourne 314 working adults Workplace incivility, coping
et al. (2016) styles, gender, job
satisfaction and sense of
community
Hur et al. 281 service employees Coworker incivility, customer Antecedent
(2016) incivility, emotional
exhaustion, intrinsic
motivation and employee
creativity
Table 1.
Theoretical function
of incivility Major conclusions
Consequence Results revealed that
workaholics reported higher
levels of stress, lower levels of
PsyCap and thus engaged in
workplace incivility
Antecedent Findings showed that incivility
would enhance perceptions of job
insecurity and employee
deviance
Antecedent Results identified that workplace
incivility was negatively
associated with job performance
and it was, in turn, positively
associated with job burnout,
which influenced turnover
intention
Measure Authors found support for the
construct validity of incivility
climate along with the team
incivility climate scale
Antecedent Authors found across two
studies that experiences of
incivility had negative
consequences for job search
intensity indirectly via their
effects on an individuals’ job
search self-efficacy. Further, the
negative effect of incivility on job
search self-efficacy and
subsequent job search behaviors
were stronger for individuals low
in terms of avoid-performance
goal orientation
Antecedent Results indicated that incivility
negatively impacted both
individuals and teams.
Importantly, creativity of teams
could be reduced if team
members were reluctant to
participate in knowledge-sharing
activities
Antecedent Incivility was more strongly
associated with reduced job
satisfaction among workers with
high problem-focused coping
(PFC) styles
Evidence indicated that incivility
experienced by service
employees from coworkers and
customers had negative effects
on their creativity due to both
emotional exhaustion and
reduced intrinsic motivation
(continued )

Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Nicholson and 171 employees Day-level incivility (from the
Griffin (2017) target perspective), daily
mood, daily recovery
Bedi and 431 customer service Blame attribution, desire for
Schat (2017) employees revenge, revenge toward
customers and empathy
Hershcovis 300 (Study 1) and 49 Incivility, belongingness,
et al. (2017) (Study 2) embarrassment, perpetrator
power, general incivility, job
insecurity, somatic
symptoms and perpetrator
power
Hershcovis 85 customers (Study 1), Study 1: target support,
and 183 professionals (Study target evaluation, and tip
Bhatnagar 2) and 119 (Study 3) percent age; Study 2 and 3:
(2017) perpetrator positive
treatment intentions,
perpetrator retaliatory
intentions, target support,
target evaluation, tip percent,
anger and empathy
Taylor et al. 131 employees of a Workplace incivility, job
(2017) nonprofit organization burnout, emotional
exhaustion, turnover
cognitions,
conscientiousness,
neuroticism and
agreeableness
Anjum and 267 employees of the Ostracism, incivility,
Ming (2018) health sector harassment, bullying, stress
and productivity
Koon and Pun 102 university academic Job demand, emotional
(2018) staff exhaustion, job satisfaction
and instigated workplace
incivility
Theoretical function
Workplace
of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Consequences Results suggested that
fluctuations in incivility followed
a weekly rhythm. Latent growth
curve analysis revealed that the
likelihood of experiencing
incivility decreased from
Monday to Friday and it is not
necessarily associated with job
demands, recovery, vigor or
gender
Antecedent Evidence showed that when
employees experienced customer
incivility and blamed the
customer for the mistreatment
were likely to experience a desire
for revenge against that
customer
Antecedent Results of the study 1
demonstrated that incivility,
even from a single source, were
negatively associated with job
insecurity and somatic health
through belongingness and
embarrassment. In turn, study 2
found that the effect of incivility
on embarrassment was stronger
when the perpetrator had high
role-based power
Antecedent Overall, evidenced suggested
(customers react after that customers supported
witnessing a fellow mistreated employees
customer mistreat an (affectively, cognitively, and
employee) behaviorally), even though
customers were not always right
Antecedent Findings revealed that incivility
change depicted meaningful
variation
Consequences Results demonstrated that
ostracism, incivility, harassment
and bullying had direct negative
effects on job productivity
Consequences Data suggested that employees
who experienced higher job
demands had higher levels of
emotional exhaustion and
decreased level of job
satisfaction, which led to
instigated workplace incivility
(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Gabriel et al. 422 participants (Study 1), Study 1: gender, female-
(2018) 608 (Study 2), 319 instigated incivility, male-
(Study 3) instigated incivility, race,
occupational tenure, and
negative affectivity; Study 2:
gender, incivility, agentic and
communal traits, and job
satisfaction; Study 3: added
psychological vitality and
turnover intentions
Arshad and 108 employees nested in Workplace incivility,
Ismail (2018) 18 teams from private neuroticism, and knowledge
sectors hiding
Jawahar and 350 professionals Supervisor incivility, work
Schreurs engagement, performance
(2018) and trust in supervisor
Abubakar 331 hotel employees Tolerance for workplace
et al. (2018a) incivility, employee cynicism
and job search behavior
Abubakar 320 bank employees Workplace ostracism,
et al. (2018b) workplace tolerance to
incivility, generation cohorts,
negative emotions and
intention to sabotage
Park and 167 couples Email incivility, perceptions Antecedent
Haun (2018) of stress transmission from
the partner and work
withdrawn
Abubakar 447 health workers Work-family conflict, family-
(2018) work conflict, supervisor
incivility, coworker incivility
and psychological distress
Gloor et al. 474 early career Gender and parenthood,
(2018) employees’ parental leave policies,
experienced incivility, career
withdrawal cognitions and
change
Viotti et al. 155 Co-worker incivility
(2018) (interpersonal conflict scale),
work-related exhaustion and
organizational efficiency
Table 1.
Theoretical function
of incivility Major conclusions
Antecedent Results suggested that women
were more likely to experience
female-instigated incivility than
their male counterparts.
Additionally, women had higher
experiences of female-instigated
incivility than male-instigated
incivility
Antecedent Evidence confirmed that
employees who were treated with
uncivil manner likely chose to
hide their knowledge as a form of
retaliation for the treatment
given to them
Antecedent Supervisor-initiated incivility
was related to employees feeling
less engaged in their work.
Nevertheless, incivility did not
appear to impair work
engagement and citizenship
performance even though the
level of trust in the leader was
low
Antecedent Results indicated that tolerance
for workplace incivility was
conducive to job search behavior;
however, cynicism had a low
effect in the relationship
Antecedent Authors found that the impact of
workplace tolerance incivility on
the intention to sabotage could be
two times higher than workplace
ostracism
Evidence suggested that email
incivility’s negative effects could
go beyond the targets’ work and
family domains and could
influence their partners’ work
withdrawal
Antecedent Authors found that work-family
conflict (WFC), family-work
conflict, supervisor incivility,
and coworker incivility impacted
psychological distress
Mediator Findings showed that employee
parenthood and organizational
parental leave policies moderated
the effects of employee gender on
experienced incivility, which led,
in turn, to the career withdrawal
Consequence Findings indicated that bullying
by a superior at Time 1
significantly affected co-worker
incivility and exhaustion at Time
1 and efficiency at Time 2.
Further, bullying by a superior
significantly affected both co-
worker incivility and efficiency
at Time 2. Finally, bullying by
patients/visitors affected co-
worker incivility at Time 1
(continued )

Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Lim et al. 56 employees and their Workplace incivility, daily Antecedent
(2018) spouses hostility, angry and
withdrawn marital behaviors
and trait hostility
Park et al. 96 individuals Job control; Daily Afternoon Antecedent (cyber
(2018) Survey: cyber incivility,
affective distress and
physical distress; Daily
Morning Survey: affective
and physical distress and
Psychological detachment
from work in the evening
Schilpzand 212 employees and their Incivility in the team, self-
and Huang 51 supervising managers identity orientations, feeling in team)
(2018) ostracized, and proactive
performance
Aljawarneh 329 employees from Tolerance to workplace
and Atan hospitality industry incivility, job search
(2018) behavior, employee cynicism, incivility)
service innovative behavior
and knowledge hiding
behavior
Marchiondo 479 employees (Study 1) Study 1: recent uncivil
et al. (2018a) and 296 (Study 2) experience, attribution of
intent, negative appraisal,
hostility, and agreeableness;
Study 2: it measured
neuroticism rather than
agreeableness
Marchiondo 419 (Study 1) and 479 Study 1: most recent uncivil Antecedent
et al. (2018b) (Study 2) experience, negative
appraisal, attributions:
perceived perpetrator
control, intent to harm, and
job satisfaction; Study 2:
negative appraisal, challenge
appraisal, perceived
perpetrator intent, thriving at
work and coworker-reported
OCB
De Clercq et al. 454 employees Self-efficacy, perceived
(2018) workplace incivility, job-
related anxiety and job
performance
Theoretical function
Workplace
of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Findings confirmed that the
experience of incivility was
positively associated with the
feelings of hostility and it was
subsequently related to
increased angry family
behaviors, according to spouses
Results indicated that day-level
incivility) cyber incivility was related to
both greater distress on the same
workday and the following
morning; additionally,
Furthermore, evidence showed
support for two moderators of
these relationships (i.e. job
control at work and day-level
evening detachment at home)
Antecedent (incivility Employees who experienced
higher levels of meaning and
identification from their
collective and dyadic workplace
ties manifested to feel more
ostracized by experienced team
incivility. By feeling ostracized
had a stronger negative effect on
proactive performance for
employees with a stronger
individual identity orientation
Antecedent (tolerance There was no evidence that
to workplace employee cynicism mediated the
link between tolerance to
workplace incivility and service
innovative behavior
Antecedent Overall, meaning-making of
incivility was worse when the
perpetrator was considered to be
more neurotic than the target
Results identified that (1) the
more intent to harm targets
believed perpetrators held, the
more negatively they appraised
uncivil experiences; (2) greater
perceived controllability
predicted perceived intent to
harm; and (3) the more negatively
targets appraised incivility, the
lower their job satisfaction. In
addition, thematic analysis found
three main themes of incivility
appraisals: neutral, challenge
(potential for learning, growth,
problem solving, or any other
positive assessment) and
negative (harmful and/or
threatening)
Moderator Perceptions of workplace
incivility moderated the effect of
self-efficacy on job performance
via job-related anxiety
(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM Theoretical function
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused of incivility Major conclusions

Loh and Loi 303 white collar Experienced workplace
(2018) employees incivility, burnout and
instigated workplace
incivility
Moon and Hur 252 frontline employees Experienced coworker
(2018) incivility, job calling,
perceived organizational
support, emotional
exhaustion and customer-
directed counterproductive
work behavior
Arasli et al. 262 frontline employees Polychronicity (employee
(2018) quality), customer incivility,
coworker incivility,
supervisor incivility and job
performance
Kabat-Farr 399 workers (Study 1) and Perceived work ability,
et al. (2019) 116 employees of supervisor incivility
childcare programs experience, job involvement,
(Study 2) grit and negative affect
Mackey et al. 190 workers (Study 1) and Incivility, enactment, job
(2019) 629 (Study 2) satisfaction, Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and
turnover Intent
Jensen et al. 546 employee stores Performance pressure, ethical Mediator
(2019) leadership, store incivility
and store shrink
De Clercq et al. 212 employees Workplace incivility, political Antecedent
(2019) skill, job dissatisfaction and (workplace incivility)
helping behavior
Antecedent Evidence showed the mediator
(Experienced role of burnout in the relationship
incivility) between workplace incivility and
instigated uncivil workplace
behaviors
Antecedent Findings showed that employees’
(experienced experienced coworker incivility
coworker incivility) affected customer-directed CWB
via emotional exhaustion.
Further, employee’s job calling
moderated the effect of coworker
incivility on emotional
exhaustion. But POS did not
exert a positive moderating effect
Moderators (3 Results indicated that (1) the
constructs of interaction of polychronicity and
incivility) customer incivility in the
workplace weakened the job
performance of frontline
employees; (2) coworker incivility
did not predicted employee’s job
performance; (3) and supervisor
incivility had a negative
significant impact on job
performance
Antecedent Results suggested that to both
samples the supervisor incivility
was negatively related to
perceived work ability
(surpassing all other included
predictors in Sample 1)
Antecedent As a result of increasing
(experienced incivility, lower levels of
incivility) enactment were associated with
decreases in job satisfaction and
OCBs, as well as increases in
turnover intent. However, higher
levels of enactment were related
to modest effect on job
satisfaction, an increase in OCBs
and both a small (Sample 1) and
favorable (Sample 2) effect on
turnover intent
Authors found that performance
pressure and ethical leadership
were linked in such a way that
influenced store-level incivility.
Finally, stores with higher
incivility also depicted higher
levels of shrink
Evidence indicated that job
dissatisfaction fully mediated the
relationship between workplace
incivility and helping behavior;
further, political skill predicted
job dissatisfaction, and job
dissatisfaction along with
political skill predicted helping
behavior

Table 1. (continued )

Author(s) Sample Constructs perused
Cheng et al. 335 employees and 62 of Family incivility, work–
(2019) their supervisors family centrality, family-to-
work conflict and service
sabotage
Kim and Qu 334 employees Customer incivility,
(2019) emotional intelligence,
burnout, employee incivility
toward customers and
employee incivility toward
coworkers
Martinez and 15 top management The effects of incivility on
Eisenberg teams members TMT members and the
(2019) coping strategies they use to
reduce the effects of incivility
Samosh (2019) 205 participants The relational schemas of
workplace incivility to
develop an understanding of
incivility from the employee
perspective
Trent and 168 participants Coworker incivility, resilient Antecedent
Allen (2019) coping and burnout
McCarthy 112 professionals Rude email
et al., 2019)
Daniels and 144 employees (Study 1) Supervisor paternalism,
Jordan (2019) and 295 healthcare targeted incivility,
industry employees organizational policies
(Study 2) regarding and tolerance for
incivility and
counterproductive work
behavior
Theoretical function
Workplace
of incivility Major conclusions incivility
Antecedent (family The results suggested that
incivility) family incivility was associated
with increased family-to-work
conflict, which in turn increased
sabotage behaviors among
service employees
Antecedent Findings showed that customer
incivility led to employee
incivility and employees were
more likely to be involved in
more reciprocate behaviors with
customers than they were to
coworkers. Further, employees’
level of emotional intelligence
could attenuate the detrimental
impacts of customer incivility
Consequence The TMT participants felt it was
their duty to work toward
mitigating the effects of the
uncivil behavior
Consequence Findings indicated that the top
14 most frequently examples of
incivility were: criticize/insult
(23%), dismissive (14%), shout
(14%), inappropriate language
(13%), talk (indirect) (12%),
unfair treatment (12%), name-
calling (10%), inappropriate
jokes (7%), fight/argue (7%),
lying (5%), invasion of privacy
(4%), sabotage/backstab (2%),
threat/intimidate (2%) and
withhold information (2%)
Results confirmed that
(experienced incivility volunteers were targets of
within a volunteer incivility and, as such, also
population) experienced increased burnout.
Nevertheless, resilient coping
effectively buffered the
incivility–burnout relationship,
specifically when the incivility
experienced by volunteers were
relatively few
Measure It was empirically informed,
validated and considered more
useful than the existing cyber
incivility scale
Moderator and Evidence suggested that
Mediator targeted incivility mediated the
relationship between
paternalism and CWB. In
addition, data showed that both
incivility climate policies and
incivility climate tolerance
moderated the paternalism—
targeted incivility relationship
(continued ) Table 1.
IJWHM Theoretical function
Author(s) Sample Constructs perused of incivility Major conclusions

Holm et al. 978 trade union Witnessed workplace
(2019) employees incivility (from coworker and
supervisor), instigated
workplace incivility,
psychosocial work factors,
stress, job satisfaction, social
support from coworker,
social support from
supervisor and job
embeddedness
Vahle-Hinz 348 employees Workplace incivility, rude
et al. (2019) behavior toward others,
work-related rumination and
revenge behavior intent
Table 1. Note(s): Compiled by the author (N 5 93)
Antecedent Witnessed workplace incivility
from coworkers and supervisors
perception instigated incivility.
In turn, witnessed incivility was
associated with both perceived
stress and low job satisfaction,
yet witnessed incivility was not
linked to instigated incivility via
perceived stress or low job
satisfaction. Further,
participants who had witnessed
coworker incivility and at the
same time perceived high levels
of control, social support (from
coworkers) or embeddedness on
average expressed higher levels
of instigated incivility
Antecedent The results supported a
relationship between workplace
incivility and showing rude
behaviors toward others at the
between- and within-person level
of analysis

25
21
20

15 13 13

10 8 FREQUENCY
7
6
5 4 4
3 3 3 3
2
1 1
Figure 1. 0
2001
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2011
2012
2013

Research outcome
by year

singularities of WI. Put differently, researchers may expand the findings about WI by
examining how non-investigated nations see and handle it.

Collection methods
Data indicated that the method preferences were extremely varied. Researchers have
employed different methodological approaches to unveil the phenomenon of WI. However, it
was notorious their proclivity to utilize quantitative methods (see Table 4). In fact, findings
identified a very modest preference toward qualitative studies (only 5.5% of the sample).
Such weak result demonstrated that the qualitative approach may not be properly explored,
especially whether one takes into account that WI is also derived from dyadic relationships.
Therefore, it appears particularly interesting to go deeper in terms of examining which
Journal title Frequency (%)
Workplace
incivility
Academy of Management Journal 1 1.1
Advances in Developing Human Resources 4 4.3
American Journal of Management 1 1.1
Anxiety, Stress and Coping 1 1.1
Applied Psychology: An International Review 1 1.1
Asia–Pacific Journal of Business Administration 1 1.1
Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1 1.1
BioMed Research International 1 1.1
EuroMed Journal of Business 1 1.1
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 3 3.2
Group and Organization Management 2 2.2
Harvard Business Review 1 1.1
Human Resource Development International 1 1.1
Human Resource Development Quarterly 2 2.2
International Journal of Conflict Management 1 1,1
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 3 3.2
International Journal of Workplace Health Management 3 3.2
Journal of Applied Psychology 7 7.5
Journal of Business Ethics 2 2.2
Journal of Consumer Research 1 1.1
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 1 1.1
Journal of Management 4 4.3
Journal of Management Development 3 3.2
Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 1 1.1
Journal of Managerial Psychology 2 2.2
Journal of Modeling in Management 1 1.1
Journal of Nursing Management 1 1.1
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 1 1.1
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 5.4
Journal of Organizational Behavior 8 8.6
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 1 1.1
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 1 1.1
Journal of Service Theory and Practice 2 2.2
Journal of Services Marketing 2 2.2
Journal of Vocational Behavior 1 1.1
Leadership and Organization Development Journal 1 1.1
Management Decision 1 1.1
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 1 1.1
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1 1.1
Organization Management Journal 4 4.3
Personnel Review 2 2.2
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1 1.1
The Journal of Psychology 2 2.2
The Service Industries Journal 1 1.1
Work and Stress 6 6.5 Table 2.
Workplace Health and Safety 1 1.1 Research outcome
Total 93 100.0 by title

copying strategies people use to deal with it. In a related vein, it is astonishing that only one
case study was implemented until now (Gedro and Wang, 2013). Given its features, such
technique may be useful to better describe the related dynamics involving WI. Similarly,
evidenced identified that grounded theory has been underutilized as well. It is worth
remembering that such approach allows developing more complex theoretical models, as well
as enriching our understanding about this topic.
IJWHM Country Frequency (%)

Australia 6 6.5
Australia and New Zealand 1 1.1
Canada 6 6.5
China 3 3.2
Cyprus 1 1.1
German 1 1.1
Iran 1 1.1
Israel 1 1.1
Jordan 2 2.2
Malaysia 2 2.2
Nigeria 2 2.2
Pakistan 3 3.2
South Korea 3 3.3
Southeast Asia 1 1.1
Sweden 3 3.3
Switzerland 2 2.2
UK 1 1.1
USA 52 55.9
Table 3. USA and Canada 1 1.1
Research outcome by Not specified 1 1.1
country Total 93 100.0

Method Frequency (%)

Case Study 1 1.1

Cross-lagged study 1 1.1
Cross-sectional 62 66.7
Cross-sectional (qualitative design) 2 2.2
Cross-sectional and diary study 1 1.1
Cross-sectional and time-lagged research 2 2.2
Diary survey 2 2.2
Experience sampling 2 2.2
Experiment 4 4.3
Experiment and Longitudinal 1 1.1
Grounded theory 1 1.1
Longitudinal 5 5.4
Mixed methods 1 1.1
Non-experimental design 1 1.1
Phenomenological 1 1.1
Three-wave survey 1 1.1
Time-lagged research 5 5.4
Table 4. Total 93 100.0
Outcomes by method Note(s): Data were classified in accordance with authors’ statements

By contrast, cross-sectional studies have been highly used by researchers (66.7%). The
results indicated that the second most preferred methods were both longitudinal and time-
lagged research designs (5.4% each, respectively). In addition, data also revealed the usage of
two distinct quantitative approaches in several studies (4.3%) such as cross-sectional and
diary study, cross-sectional and time-lagged research and experiment/longitudinal. Further,
evidence showed that only four studies (three of them in United States and one in UK) utilized
experiment design (4.3%). Interestingly, only more recently diary surveys started to be used Workplace
by researchers (Nicholson and Griffin, 2017; Vahle-Hinz et al., 2019). The two studies under incivility
such a denomination were conducted in Australia and German. In addition, a combination
cross-sectional and diary study was carried out by Hershcovis et al. (2017) in United States.
On the whole, 17 distinct methodological approaches were identified in this WI literature
review. Therefore, results suggest that the researchers have been demonstrating a
considerable level of creativity.

Theoretical functions of WI
This section specifically analyzes the function exerted by a set of variants of incivility posited
on research models. Put another way, it is discussed the role of incivility in those models, i.e.
performing the function of antecedent, measure, moderator, mediator or consequence. In
doing so, such an analysis will help to outline the precise stage of theoretical development of
WI, that is, its nuances, variances, constructs, etc.
Antecedents. As expected, scholars have intensely applied this theoretical function of WI
in their research models. In light of it, results indicated that 63.4% of the sample study (i.e. 59
studies) used WI playing such a role. This expressive outcome may be attributed to the fact
that it is a relatively young theory. Accordingly, it was somewhat normal that the
overwhelming majority of the investigations had framed WI as an antecedent. Under this
perspective, therefore, the major goal of these studies was forcefully to understand the effects
of WI. Hence, researchers used a multiplicity of research designs in order to follow through
their work such as cross-sectional (including qualitative investigations), non-experimental,
experiments, case study, longitudinal, cross-sectional coupled with time-lagged research,
cross-sectional alongside with diary study, time-lagged research, experience-sampling,
mixed methods, time-lagged research, three-wave survey and diary survey. Samples varied
from 11 individuals (Doshy and Wang, 2014) to 34,209 (Griffin, 2010). Overall, more than
59,000 individuals were interviewed in studies under the antecedent role. Their professions
were also quite varied, including students, employees, coworkers, public sector employees,
bank tellers, managers, service employees, couples and trade union employees. In addition,
researchers conducted investigations of WI as an antecedent in United States, Australia,
Switzerland, South Korea, Iran, Canada, Nigeria, Malaysia, Jordan, Southeast Asia, China,
Pakistan, Sweden and German. At last, it is worth pointing out that several forms of incivility
were addressed under this approach (see Table 1).
Consequences. This approach is extremely relevant considering that it encapsulates, in fact,
the harmful effects associated with WI. Findings revealed that this was the second most
gauged aspect of WI totaling 21 studies (22.6% of the sample). The collected evidence showed
that WI is related to conflict styles, anger, customer service employees, customer incivility,
psychological contract violation, organizational change, job insecurity, low social support
from co-workers and job demands. Consequently, it begets negative effects such as reduced
well-being, decreased job satisfaction, job productivity, turnover intentions and sleeping
problems. Worse still, findings also showed that a great amount of workers were already
target of supervisor incivility and coworker incivility (Reio and Sanders-Reio, 2011). However,
as a potential buffer, research suggested that individuals equipped with higher perceptions of
workplace spirituality were not prone to face incivility at work (Naimon et al., 2013).
Researchers that are concerned with the consequences of WI have extensively employed
cross-sectional designs (i.e. 76.2%). Nevertheless, I also found evidence of other designs that
were used under such an approach, namely, longitudinal, diary survey, qualitative study,
cross-lagged study, grounded theory and phenomenological investigation. In turn, samples
varied from 15 individuals to 2,871 employees. On the whole, findings identified that more
7,000 individuals participated in consequential studies of WI. Samples comprised workers
IJWHM from many business sectors as well as top management team members. The investigations
were undertaken in United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Pakistan and Malaysia.
Measures. Findings showed only a few empirical investigations related to measure
(N 5 4). In this sense, it must be emphasized Cortina et al.’s (2001) landmark study that,
although classified here as an antecedent work given their goals, also yielded the most
popular measure in this field, that is, the WI Scale. Equally noteworthy is a cross-sectional
study by Martin and Hine (2005) in Australia, which aimed at the development and
validation of the uncivil workplace behavior questionnaire (N 5 368). That exploratory factor
analysis yielded four factors, namely, hostility, privacy invasion, exclusionary behavior and
gossiping. The other studies of this category were carried out in United States. That is, an
experimental and longitudinal investigation by Matthews and Ritter (2016) in which study 1
focused on intent, harmfulness, experienced incivility and gender. The study 2 addressed
experienced incivility, civility norms, role overload, affective burnout, interpersonal
deviance, organizational deviance, abusive supervision and supervisor undermining. In
turn, study 3 covered experienced incivility, overall justice, civility norms, intrinsic
motivation, ostracism and deviance. At last, the study 4 was dedicated to experienced
incivility and counterproductive workplace behaviors. The authors were successful in
identifying a validation of a concise and psychometrically sound measure of experienced WI.
Furthermore, other cross-sectional study with three samples conducted by Paulin and Griffin
(2017) focused on incivility climate, experienced incivility, interactional justice, distributive
justice, job satisfaction and turnover intention. The findings identified the construct validity
of incivility climate along with the team incivility climate scale. Finally, it is worth mentioning
the recent work by McCarthy et al. (2019), which addressed rude email. Rather, authors
reported a validated cyber incivility scale. Overall, evidence showed that more than 4,500
employees took part in the measure studies.
Mediators. Similar to the previous topic, the findings revealed four studies exploring
the function of mediation, namely, three were conducted in United States and just one in
Switzerland. In this sense, one of them (cross section design) was carried out by Reio and
Ghosh (2009). The authors perused constructs such as workplace adaptation, employee
affect, incivility and physical health and job satisfaction. The results identified that
organizational incivility had a negative influence on both physical health and job
satisfaction. Similarly, Reio’s (2011) work focused on demographics, personality traits,
situational constraints, emotional reaction, behavioral response (incivility) and
organizational commitment/satisfaction. Evidence indicated that in both models the
incivility variables were intertwined with the dependent variables; however, they also had
a role of mediators between frustration and organizational commitment/satisfaction. Also
of note is a time-lagged study conducted in Switzerland by Gloor et al. (2018) related to
gender and parenthood, parental leave policies, experienced incivility, career withdrawal
cognitions and change. As a result, employee parenthood and organizational parental
leave policies moderated the effects of employee gender on experienced incivility, which
led, in turn, to the career withdrawal. The last study of this category was conducted by
Jensen et al. (2019), which focused on performance pressure, ethical leadership, store
incivility and store shrink. Accordingly, the performance pressure along with ethical
leadership influenced store-level incivility. In turn, stores with higher incivility also
depicted higher levels of shrink. Overall, more than 1,900 individuals were interviewed in
studies of WI was employed as a mediator.
Moderators. Data also provided evidence of two studies in which incivility played the role
of moderator. More specifically, a time-lagged research by De Clercq et al. (2018) conducted in
Pakistan (N 5 454 employees). It addressed the following constructs: self-efficacy, perceived
WI, job-related anxiety and job performance. In essence, the findings revealed that the
perceptions of WI moderated the effect of self-efficacy on job performance via job-related
anxiety. On the other hand, the work by Arasli et al. (2018) aimed at the constructs of Workplace
polychronicity (employee quality), customer incivility, coworker incivility, supervisor incivility
incivility and job performance. Interestingly, the moderators of this study were three
constructs of incivility. The results indicated that the interaction of polychronicity and
customer incivility in the workplace weakened the job performance of frontline employees.
Nevertheless, coworker incivility did not predicted employee’s job performance, but
supervisor incivility had a negative significant impact on job performance.
Antecedents and consequences. Evidence identified two investigations (both involving
Canadian samples) that performed both the antecedent and consequence functions. First, a
cross-sectional design study carried (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010) with service employees
(N 5 307). Such work addressed customer incivility, job demands, emotional exhaustion
and employee incivility. The authors devised as the antecedent function the construct of
customer incivility and as consequence the employee incivility. Findings confirmed that
both perceived job demands and emotional exhaustion played the role of mediators
(sequentially) between customer incivility and employees’ uncivil treatment of customers.
The other one was a longitudinal study (Arnold and Walsh, 2015). Accordingly,
the authors gathered at time 1 measures of independent variables (customer incivility),
control variables (negative affectivity and gender) and one moderator (transformational
leadership). Soon afterward, they collected measures related to two moderators
(i.e. meaning and perspective taking) and the outcome (psychological well-being). The
results suggested that three factors could the potential to buffer employees from the
negative effects of customer incivility, namely: finding meaning in work, perspective
taking and transformational leadership of supervisors.
Moderators and mediators. In summary, I found just one cross-sectional investigation
performing both moderation and mediation function (Daniels and Jordan, 2019). That was
conducted in United States and involved 144 employees (Study 1) and 295 healthcare industry
employees (Study 2). Authors considered the following constructs: supervisor paternalism,
targeted incivility, organizational policies regarding tolerance for incivility and
counterproductive work behavior. On the whole, results suggested that targeted incivility
mediated the relationship between paternalism and CWB. Further, the findings showed that
both incivility climate policies and incivility climate tolerance moderated the paternalism—
targeted incivility relationship.

Integrative approach
Additionally, data also provided valuable results concerning what direction, angles and
theoretical streams WI researchers are pursuing. In this regard, it was feasible to collect
evidence that the overwhelming majority of investigations fit into some categories, namely,
effect, cause, dynamics and intervention. To a large extent, the major purpose of the studies is
to untangle the effects of WI (65.6%). With this in mind, these investigations contemplate a
range of aspects such as emotions, frequency of WI, employees’ behavior and performance/
productivity, engagement, team performance, family conflict, traces of personality,
psychological states, job burnout, physical symptoms, absenteeism, work withdrawal,
reduced job satisfaction, creativity, perceptions of job insecurity, employee deviance,
turnover intention, job search behavior and intention to sabotage. Accordingly, WI effect
investigations have been appropriately undertaken given that they encompass sensitive
issues concerning its impact. As expected, they show a very negative picture associated with
WI. Nevertheless, perhaps qualitative and meta-analysis investigations may help to identify
further effects linked with WI.
Studies that are focused on causes occupy the second category of researchers’ interest
(15.1%). Such result suggests that this is a promising line of research. Thus far, the findings
IJWHM indicate that cause theoretical focus is closely intertwined with studies involving
individuals high on neuroticism (Milam et al., 2009), conflicting styles (Trudel and Reio,
2011), lack of reciprocity (Meier and Semmer, 2013), position and personality, negative
attributes of the perpetrator, impact on the victim, organizations’ willful blindness (Doshy
and Wang, 2014), psychological contract violation, particularly from supervisors and their
employer (Sears and Humiston, 2015), simply witnessing incivility (Reich and Hershcovis,
2015), organizational change, job insecurity, low social support from co-workers, job
demands, experienced incivility from co-workers (Torkelson et al., 2016), rude email and
rude face-to-face encounters (McCarthy, 2016), customer incivility (Cho et al., 2016; Kim and
Qu, 2019), workaholic behavior (Lanzo et al., 2016), higher job demands, higher levels of
emotional exhaustion, decreased level of job satisfaction (Koon and Pun, 2018), neurotic
behavior (Marchiondo et al., 2018a), performance pressure and ethical leadership (Jensen
et al., 2019), among other constructs. I surmise that organizational disidentification,
mistrust, toxic leaderships, for example, may be potential causes of WI that deserve further
investigation.
Broadly speaking, some studies pay more attention to the question of dynamics
(8.6%). For example, some studies connect different forms of incivility exerting both the
function of cause and effect such as customer incivility vis-a-vis employee incivility (van
Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Schilpzand et al., 2016b, Bedi and Schat, 2017; Hershcovis and
Bhatnagar, 2017), while other investigations focus on the spiral of incivility (e.g. Ghosh
et al., 2011). In a related vein, data show WI construct playing the role of moderator or
mediator in the research models (Reio, 2011; De Clercq et al., 2018; Daniels and Jordan,
2019). In other words, the dynamics encompass studies whereby researchers look at
aspects (constructs) surrounding WI. Taken together, there is room for this theoretical
focus of studies. In this regard, experimental studies may certainly help elucidate other
dynamics related to WI.
Only a few studies are dedicated to intervention (4.3%). They focus on potential remedies
for mitigating the effects WI. As noted earlier, an interesting study by Naimon et al. (2013)
focused on both personality and workplace spirituality. Other relevant investigation
suggested that active constructive leadership may reduce the incidence of WI (Lee and
Jensen, 2014). Meanwhile, evidence shows that finding meaning in work, perspective taking
and transformational leadership of supervisors are vital aspects to help employees handle the
negative effects of customer incivility (Arnold and Walsh, 2015). Considering that the
findings revealed only a case study related to intervention (i.e. Gedro and Wang, 2013), it
seems to be a logical path to researchers unearth potential solutions.
Similarly, this theoretical approach found some studies dedicated to instrument/measure
like the preceding sub-section presented (4.3%). As the studies related to this focus
were previously reported, it is important to emphasize the need for further studies aiming
to validate these measures in other languages. Last but not least, it is worth pointing
two seminal studies that focused on both cause and instrument/measure involving
experienced work incivility (Cortina et al., 2001) and related to instigated incivility (Blau
and Anderson, 2005).

Future studies and conclusions

Overall, this effort shed more light for the upsetting problem of incivility within
organizations and its ramifications. The robust evidence garnered through this literature
review (i.e. 19 years) allowed eliciting important insights. Firstly, it is undeniably that
researchers have increasingly paid heed to the WI theory. As a result, it is one of the most
relevant topics in OB studies under scrutiny in this moment. Secondly, corroborating such
a perception is the huge amount of outlets that have been publishing about WI. In this
sense, it is a topic that has gained strong interdisciplinary status, given the manifested Workplace
interest of very distinct areas. Thirdly, cross-sectional studies have prevailed in terms of incivility
method preferences, yet other approaches have been used. Of noteworthy is the shortage
of both qualitative and meta-analytic studies, given that it is likely that there are other
aspects related to this phenomenon waiting to be found. Furthermore, the findings showed
only a few studies (N 5 4) that used randomized experiments (Porath et al., 2010; Reich and
Hershcovis, 2015; Schilpzand et al., 2016b, Hershcovis and Bhatnagar, 2017). This is a
surprising finding given that randomized experiments provide both ample reliability and
validity of statistic effects. Accordingly, studies that use such a methodological approach
will be welcomed. Fourthly, data provided evidence that a very limited number of nations
(only 18 countries) have been investigated and it is not exactly surprising that the United
States be the target of the majority of studies in this field. Therefore, it would be interesting
to explore WI under cross cultural lens, as well as knowing the reality of other countries in
handling this issue. Fifthly, consistent with previous findings, the antecedents and
consequences of WI are the major focus of the investigations (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010).
But I found some evidence that that WI has been tested as performing the role of measure,
mediator and moderator likewise. In fact, we know little about WI particularly as a
moderator. Hence, one may surmise that in situations that culminate, for example, in weak
organizational performance, employee disengagement or lack of commitment may be
permeated by WI performing such a role. Undeniably, there is a huge potential for
perusing other theoretical functions of WI.
In addition, there are also considerable opportunities to explore further mechanisms that
can help mitigate the deleterious effects of WI. For example, scholars may examine research
avenues linked with coping mechanisms such as prayer, faith, religion, spirituality, positive
emotions, resiliency, patience, psychological capital and so on. In parallel, Andersson and
Pearson (1999) emphasized the importance “to consider the situation in understanding how
the process of exchange between parties unfolds” (p. 457). In this regard, a recent study
involving a strike of police officers considered such a perspective and its ripple effects
(Vasconcelos, in press). Note that this qualitative investigation addressed a whole category of
workers surprisingly supported by their wives. Such a revealing work confirmed the
assertion that “At its worst, incivility bleeds over to many stakeholders inside and outside the
organization” (Pearson and Porath, 2004, p. 412).
In a related vein, Pearson et al. (2005) pointed out the role exerted by organizational
pressures on shaping a frame of WI. Although incivility has been related to disruptions in the
relationship with coworkers, supervisor and customers (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Jawahar
and Schreurs, 2018), one would be challenger to take into account how organizations really
treat others, i.e. customers, partners, community and society as a whole. In my view, there is a
theory gap here that deserves to be carefully examined. Simply put, I advocate that an
organization is practicing incivility when it disrespects others. In this sense, it is worth
remembering that incivility suggests, at the simplest form, insensitivity to feelings, rudeness,
lack of trust, empathy, cooperation and reciprocity (Reio and Sanders-Reio, 2011; Meier and
Semmer, 2013). Therefore, it is highly likely that incivility may be also a process instead of an
occasional event (Meier and Gross, 2015). In this way, organizational incivility may help
explain broader organizational dynamics and harmful interactions with the society. In other
words, incivility may be much more than a form of workplace deviance that impact workers
and organizations as well, as suggested by Welbourne et al. (2016). Rather, researchers may
explore incivility through the point of view of customers, communities and society,
specifically in their interplays with organizations. Certainly, there are many serious
disruptions shaping those interactions that deserve to be analyzed under such a lens.
Hopefully, I think that theoretical models and more empirical research may better clarify such
a sensitive relationship.
IJWHM References
Abubakar, A.M., Megeirhi, H.A. and Shneikat, B. (2018a), “Tolerance for workplace incivility,
employee cynicism and job search behavior”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 Nos 9-10,
pp. 629-643.
Abubakar, A.M., Yazdian, T.F. and Behravesh, E. (2018b), “A riposte to ostracism and tolerance to
workplace incivility: a generational perspective”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 441-457.
Abubakar, A.M. (2018), “Linking work-family interference, workplace incivility, gender and
psychological distress”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 226-242.
Ali, A.A., Ryan, A.M., Lyons, B.J., Ehrhart, M.G. and Wessel, J.L. (2016), “The long road to
employment: incivility experienced by job seekers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101
No. 3, pp. 333-349.
Aljawarneh, N.M.S. and Atan, T. (2018), “Linking tolerance to workplace incivility, service innovative,
knowledge hiding, and job search behavior: the mediating role of employee cynicism”,
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 298-320.
Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471.
Anjum, A. and Ming, X. (2018), “Combating toxic workplace environment: an empirical study in the
context of Pakistan”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 675-697.
Arasli, H., Namin, B.H. and Abubakar, A.M. (2018), “Workplace incivility as a moderator of the
relationships between polychronicity and job outcomes”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1245-1272.
Arnold, K.A. and Walsh, M.M. (2015), “Customer incivility and employee well-being: testing the
moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership”, Work and
Stress, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 362-378.
Arshad, R. and Ismail, I.R. (2018), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: does
personality matter?”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 278-288.
Beattie, L. and Griffin, B. (2014), “Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response to
workplace incivility: a diary study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 124-142.
Bedi, A. and Schat, A.C.H. (2017), “Employee revenge against uncivil customers”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 636-649.
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.
Caza, B.B. and Cortina, L.M. (2007), “From insult to injury: explaining the impact of incivility”, Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 335-350.
Chen, Y., Ferris, D.L., Kwan, H.K., Yan, M., Zhou, M. and Hong, Y. (2013), “Self-love’s lost labor: a self-
enhancement model of workplace incivility”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 1199-1219.
Cheng, B., Zhou, X. and Guo, G. (2019), “Family-to-work spillover effects of family incivility on
employee sabotage in the service industry”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 270-287.
Cho, M., Bonn, M.A., Han, S.J. and Lee, K.H. (2016), “Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant
frontline service employee emotions and service performance”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2888-2912.
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 in the workplace:
incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V.J. and Nelson, K. (2017), “Researching rudeness: the past, Workplace
present, and future of the science of incivility”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 299-313. incivility
Daniels, S.R. and Jordan, S.L. (2019), “The effect of paternalism on incivility: exploring incivility
climate as an important boundary condition”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 190-203.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U. and Azeem, M.U. (2018), “Self-efficacy to spur job performance: roles of job-
related anxiety and perceived workplace incivility”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 891-907.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U., Azeem, M.U. and Ahmad, H.N. (2019), “The relationship between workplace
incivility and helping behavior: roles of job dissatisfaction and political skill”, Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 153 No. 5, pp. 507-527.
Doshy, P.V. and Wang, J. (2014), “Workplace incivility: what do targets say about it?”, American
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 30-42.
Felblinger, D.M. (2008), “Incivility and bullying in the workplace and nurses’ shame responses”,
Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 234-242.
Ferguson, M. (2012), “You cannot leave it at the office: spillover and crossover of coworker incivility”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 571-588.
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.
Gedro, J. and Wang, J. (2013), “Creating civil and respectful organizations through the scholar-
practitioner bridge”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 284-295.
Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S. and Falletta, S. (2011), “Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships:
reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behavior”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Ghosh, R., Reio, T.G. Jr and Bang, H. (2013), “Reducing turnover intent: supervisor and co-worker
incivility and socialization-related learning”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Gloor, J.M., Li, X., Lim, S. and Feierabend, A. (2018), “An inconvenient truth? Interpersonal and career
consequences of ‘maybe baby’ expectations”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 104 February,
pp. 44-58.
Griffin, B. (2010), “Multilevel relationships between organizational-level incivility, justice and intention
to stay”, Work and Stress, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 309-323.
Hershcovis, M.S. and Bhatnagar, N. (2017), “When fellow customers behave badly: witness reactions to
employee mistreatment by customers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 11, pp. 1528-1544.
Hershcovis, M.S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T.C. and Christie, A.M. (2017), “Targeted workplace
incivility: the roles of belongingness, embarrassment, and power”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1057-1075.
Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S. and Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014), “Workplace bullying and incivility: a
systematic review of interventions”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 54-72.
Holm, K., Torkelson, E. and B€ackstr€om, M. (2015), “Models of workplace incivility: the relationships to
instigated incivility and negative outcomes”, BioMed Research International, Hindawi
Publishing Corporation, London, article ID 920239. doi: 10.1155/2015/920239.
Holm, K., Torkelson, E. and B€ackstr€om, M. (2019), “Exploring links between witnessed and instigated
workplace incivility”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 160-175.
IJWHM Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.W. and Han, S.-J. (2015), “The effect of customer incivility on service employees’
customer orientation through double-mediation of surface acting and emotional exhaustion”,
Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 394-413.
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T. and Jun, J.-K. (2016), “The effect of workplace incivility on service employee
creativity: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 302-315.
Hutton, S. and Gates, D. (2008), “Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct care staff”,
Workplace Health and Safety, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 168-175.
Itzkovich, Y. (2016), “The impact of employees’ status on incivility, deviant behaviour and job
insecurity”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 304-318.
Jawahar, I.M. and Schreurs, B. (2018), “Supervisor incivility and how it affects subordinates’
performance: a matter of trust”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 709-726.
Jensen, J.M., Cole, M.S. and Rubin, R.S. (2019), “Predicting retail shrink from performance pressure,
ethical leader behavior, and store-level incivility”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40
No. 6, pp. 723-739.
Johnson, P.R. and Indvik, J. (2001), “Slings and arrows of rudeness: incivility in the workplace”, The
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 705-714.
Kabat-Farr, D., Walsh, B.M. and McGonagle, A.K. (2019), “Uncivil supervisors and perceived work
ability: the joint moderating roles of job involvement and grit”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 156 No. 4, pp. 971-985.
Kim, H. and Qu, H. (2019), “Employees’ burnout and emotional intelligence as mediator and moderator
in the negative spiral of incivility”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1412-143.
Koon, V.-Y. and Pun, P.-Y. (2018), “The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction on
the relationship between job demands and instigated workplace incivility”, The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 187-207.
Lanzo, L., Aziz, S. and Wuensch, K. (2016), “Workaholism and incivility: stress and psychological
capital’s role”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 165-183.
Lee, J. and Jensen, J.M. (2014), “The effects of active constructive and passive corrective leadership on
workplace incivility and the mediating role fairness perceptions”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 416-443.
Lim, S., Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2008), “Personal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and
health outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 95-107.
Lim, S., Ilies, R., Koopman, J., Christoforou, P. and Arvey, R.D. (2018), “Emotional mechanisms linking
incivility at work to aggression and withdrawal at home: an experience-sampling study”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 2888-2908.
Loh, J.M.I. and Loi, N. (2018), “Tit for tat: burnout as a mediator between workplace incivility and
instigated workplace incivility”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 100-111.
Loi, N.M., Loh, J.M.I. and Hine, D.W. (2015), “Don’t rock the boat: the moderating role of gender in the
relationship between workplace incivility and work withdrawal”, The Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 169-186.
Mackey, J.D., Bishoff, J.D., Daniels, S.R., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2019), “Incivility’s
relationship with workplace outcomes: enactment as a boundary condition in two samples”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 513-528.
Marchiondo, L.A., Biermeier-Hanson, B., Krenn, D.R. and Kabat-Farr, D. (2018a), “Target meaning-
making of workplace incivility based on perceived personality similarity with perpetrators”,
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 152 No. 7, pp. 474-496.
Marchiondo, L.A., Cortina, L.M. and Kabat-Farr, D. (2018b), “Attributions and appraisals of workplace Workplace
incivility: finding light on the dark side?”, Applied Psychology: International Review, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 369-400. incivility
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Martin, R.J. and Hine, D.W. (2005), “Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior
questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 477-490.
Martinez, J.O. and Eisenberg, J. (2019), “Incivility and beyond at the top management team level”,
Organization Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 98-110.
Matthews, R.A. and Ritter, K.-J. (2016), “A concise, content valid, gender invariant measure of
workplace incivility”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 352-365.
McCarthy, K., Pillai, R., Cherry, B. and Steigerwald, M. (2019), “From cyber to e-mail incivility: a
psychometric assessment and measure validation study”, Organization Management Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 61-68.
McCarthy, K.A. (2016), “Is rudeness really that common? An exploratory study of incivility
at work”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 364-374.
Meier, L.L. and 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, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1096-1113.
Meier, L.L. and Semmer, N.K. (2013), “Lack of reciprocity, narcissism, anger, and instigated workplace
incivility: a moderated mediation model”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 461-475.
Milam, A.C., Spitzmueller, C. and Penney, L.M. (2009), “Investigating individual differences among
targets of workplace incivility”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 58-69.
Moon, T.W. and Hur, W.-M. (2018), “Go home and kick the dog: spillover effects of experienced
coworker incivility on customer-directed counterproductive work behavior”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 554-575.
Mullen, J.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2013), “The effects of interpersonal customer mistreatment on
employee retaliation”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 118-128.
Naimon, E.C., Mullins, M.E. and Osatuke, K. (2013), “The effects of personality and spirituality on
workplace incivility perceptions”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 91-110.
Nicholson, T. and Griffin, B. (2017), “Thank goodness it’s Friday: weekly pattern of workplace
incivility”, Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Park, Y. and Haun, V.C. (2018), “The long arm of email incivility: transmitted stress to the
partner and partner work withdrawal”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 10,
pp. 1268-1282.
Park, Y., Fritz, C. and Jex, S.M. (2018), “Daily cyber incivility and distress: the moderating roles of
resources at work and home”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 2535-2557.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Paulin, D. and Griffin, B. (2016), “The relationships between incivility, team climate for incivility and
job-related employee well-being: a multilevel analysis”, Work and Stress, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 132-151.
Paulin, D. and Griffin, B. (2017), “Team incivility climate scale: development and validation of the
team-level incivility climate construct”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 315-345.
IJWHM Pearson, C.M. and Porath, C.L. (2004), “On incivility, its impact, and directions for future research”, in
Griffin, R.W. and O’Leary-Kelly, A. (Eds), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 403-425.
Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Porath, C.L. (2000), “Assessing and attacking workplace
incivility”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 123-137.
Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Wegner, J.W. (2001), “When workers flout convention: a study of
workplace incivility”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 1387-1419.
Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L. and Porath, C.L. (2005), “Workplace incivility”, in Fox, S. and Spector, P.
(Eds), Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, American
Psychological Association Press, Washington, DC, pp. 177-200.
Penney, L.M. and Spector, P.E. (2005), “Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 777-796.
Porath, C. and Person, C. (2013), “The price of incivility”, Harvard Business Review January–February,
pp. 115-121.
Porath, C.L., Macinnis, D.J. and Folkes, V.S. (2010), “Witnessing incivility among employees: effects on
consumer anger and negative inferences about companies”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 292-303.
Porath, C.L., Gerbasi, A. and Schorch, S.L. (2015), “The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 1527-1541.
Rahim, A. and Cosby, D.M. (2016), “A model of workplace incivility, job burnout, turnover
intentions, and job performance”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 10,
pp. 1255-1265.
Reich, T.C. and Hershcovis, M.S. (2015), “Observing workplace incivility”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 203-215.
Reio, T.G. Jr and Ghosh, R. (2009), “Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: implications for
human resource development research and practice”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 237-264.
Reio, T.G. Jr and Sanders-Reio, J. (2011), “Thinking about workplace engagement: does supervisor and
coworker incivility really matter?”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 462-478.
Reio, T.G. Jr (2011), “Supervisor and coworker incivility: testing the work frustration-aggression
model”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 54-68.
Samosh, J. (2019), “What is workplace incivility? An investigation of employee relational schemas”,
Organization Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 81-97.
Schilpzand, P. and Huang, L. (2018), “When and how experienced incivility dissuades proactive
performance: an integration of sociometer and self-identity orientation perspectives”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 8, pp. 828-841.
Schilpzand, P., de Pater, I. and Erez, A. (2016a), “Workplace incivility: a review of the literature
and agenda for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. S1,
pp. S57-S88.
Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K. and Lim, S. (2016b), “Incivility hates company: shared incivility attenuates
rumination, stress, and psychological withdrawal by reducing self-blame”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 133, pp. 33-44.
Sears, K. and Humiston, G.S. (2015), “The role of emotion in workplace incivility”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 390-405.
Sharifirad, M.S. (2016), “Can incivility impair team’s creative performance through paralyzing
employee’s knowledge sharing? A multi-level approach”, The Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 200-225.
Sliter, M.T. and Boyd, E.M. (2015), “But we’re here to help! Positive buffers of the relationship between Workplace
outsider incivility and employee outcomes”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 225-238. incivility
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.
Smith, L.M., Andrusyszyn, M.A. and Laschingher, H.K.S. (2010), “Effects of workplace incivility and
empowerment on newly-graduated nurses’ organizational commitment”, Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1004-1015.
Taylor, S.G., Bedeian, A.G. and Kluemper, D.H. (2012), “Linking workplace incivility to citizenship
performance: the combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 878-893.
Taylor, S.G., Bedeian, A.G., Cole, M.S. and Zhang, Z. (2017), “Developing and testing a dynamic model
of workplace incivility change”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 645-670.
Torkelson, E., Holm, K., B€ackstr€om, M. and Schad, E. (2016), “Factors contributing to the perpetration
of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility
from others”, Work and Stress, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Trent, S.B. and Allen, J.A. (2019), “Resilience only gets you so far: volunteer incivility and burnout”,
Organization Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 69-80.
Trudel, J. and Reio, T.G. Jr (2011), “Managing workplace incivility: the role of conflict management
styles—antecedent or antidote?”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 395-423.
van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2010), “The role of job demands and emotional
exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1486-1504.
Vahle-Hinz, T., Baethge, A. and van Dick, R. (2019), “Beyond one work day? A daily diary study on
causal and reverse effects between experienced workplace incivility and behaving rude
towards others”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 272-285.
Vasconcelos, A.F. (in press), “Analyzing the effects of incivility beyond workplaces”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-08-2019-1865.
Viotti, S., Essenmacher, L., Hamblin, L.E. and Arnetz, J.E. (2018), “Testing the reciprocal associations
among co-worker incivility, organisational inefficiency, and work-related exhaustion: a one-
year, cross-lagged study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 334-356.
Walker, D.D., van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014), “Exploring the effects of individual
customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: the moderating roles of entity (in)civility
and negative affectivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 151-161.
Welbourne, J.L., Gangadharan, A. and Esparza, C.A. (2016), “Coping style and gender effects on
attitudinal responses to incivility”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 720-738.
Zauderer, D.G. (2002), “Workplace incivility and the management of human capital”, Public Manager,
Vol. 31, pp. 36-43.

About the author

Anselmo Ferreira Vasconcelos received a BS in Social Communication from Escola Superior de
Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM) and an MS in Management from Pontifical Catholic University, both in
S~ao Paulo, Brazil. As an independent researcher, he has his works published in European Journal of
Marketing, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of
Management & Organization, Journal of Management Development, Management Decision,
Management & Marketing, Management Research, Management Research Review, The Qualitative
IJWHM Report and several Brazilian academic journals about prayer effects on organizational life, internal (de)
marketing, spirituality in the workplaces and societal marketing, among other topics. Anselmo regularly
writes for Brazilian non-refereed publications about religion and spirituality themes. And, he is also the
author of a Portuguese book on spirituality in the workplace, Espiritualidade no Ambiente de Trabalho:
Dimens~oes, Reflex~oes e Desafios (Editora Atlas, 2008). Anselmo Ferreira Vasconcelos can be contacted at:
afv@uol.com.br

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