Journal of Management Development

A model of workplace incivility, job burnout, turnover intentions, and job

performance
Afzalur Rahim Dana M. Cosby
Article information:
To cite this document:
Afzalur Rahim Dana M. Cosby , (2016)," A model of workplace incivility, job burnout, turnover
intentions, and job performance ", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 Iss 10 pp. 1255 -
1265
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0138
Downloaded on: 09 March 2017, At: 18:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 44 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 794 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between
supervisors and line-level employees", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 28 Iss 4 pp. 737-761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2014-0360
(2016),"The mediating role of organizational identification in the relationship between qualitative
job insecurity, OCB and job performance", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 35 Iss 6 pp.
735-746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2015-0143

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:434496 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

A model of workplace incivility, Model of

workplace
job burnout, turnover intentions, incivility
and job performance
Afzalur Rahim 1255
Center for Advanced Studies in Management, Received 29 September 2015
Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA, and Revised 10 April 2016
11 July 2016
Dana M. Cosby Accepted 14 July 2016
Department of Management, Western Kentucky University,
Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationships among workplace incivility,
job burnout, turnover intentions, and job performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors used a dyad survey method to collect data.
Structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the data.
Findings – Results showed that job burnout mediated the relationship between workplace incivility
and turnover intention and that workplace incivility was negatively associated with job performance.
In other words, participants experiencing higher levels of incivility reported greater levels of job
burnout and subsequent increased turnover intention and lower levels of job performance.
Originality/value – The authors can find no other research that examines the relationship between
workplace incivility and job performance.
Keywords Performance, Employee turnover, Corporate culture
Paper type Research paper

Throughout the past decade, workplace incivility emerged as a significant construct in

management literature. It has become a key concern for management practitioners as
reports of this phenomenon indicate that it is widespread among employees. Examples
of these behaviors include actions such as using demeaning language, making veiled
threats, gossiping, ignoring coworker requests, sending flaming e-mails, or otherwise
demonstrating disrespect for others in the workplace (Holm et al., 2015; Reich and
Hershcovis, 2015). Literature on management suggests that incivility is prevalent in
contemporary organizations. Pearson and Porath (2010) reported 96-99 percent of
survey respondents experienced or had witnessed incivility in the workplace. Langhout
et al. (2000) found that 71 percent of survey respondents reported experiencing
uncivilized behaviors during the past five years. Other studies suggest that 71 percent
of court employees, 75 percent of university employees, 79 percent of law enforcement
employees, and 85 percent of the nurses experienced incivility at workplace (Cortina
and Magley, 2009; Lewis and Malecha, 2011).
One of the shortcomings of the literature on workplace incivility is that many of the
past studies have used self-report measures of incivility and criterion measures, such as
Journal of Management
job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational loyalty. This resulted in Development
common method bias that is variance attributable to the measurement method rather Vol. 35 No. 10, 2016
pp. 1255-1265
than to the constructs the measures represent. Another issue is associated with these © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
studies is that associations between variables were reported as correlations. Very little DOI 10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0138
 JMD attempt was made to develop and test causal models. The present study is an attempt
35,10 to bridge these gaps. The value-added contribution of this study is that it develops and
tests a structural equations model of workplace incivility, job performance, job burnout,
and turnover intentions. To overcome the problem of common method variance, we
collected data on job burnout and turnover intention from students, on workplace
incivility from their colleagues, and on job performance from their supervisors.
1256 The model for the study is presented in Figure 1. Here a solid line for each link indicates
significant relationship between two latent variables and a broken line for each link
indicates indirect (nonsignificant) relationship between two latent variables.

Workplace incivility
Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) definition of workplace incivility as “low-intensity
behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

mutual respect; uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous,

displaying a lack of regard for others” (p. 457) is often cited in the literature. Another
definition of this concept is “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which
supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors,
excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178).
Literature review suggests that workplace incivility is positively associated with job
dissatisfaction, job withdrawal, and psychological distress associated with the experienced
uncivilized behavior. Employees experiencing incivility may engage in negative emotional
responses to the situation. Bibi et al. (2013) found positive relationship between incivility
and counterproductive work behaviors such as abuse, production deviance, sabotage,
theft, and withdrawal. Other studies reported that incivility was associated with
absenteeism, higher levels of anger, fear, and sadness in the workplace (Porath and
Pearson, 2012), job dissatisfaction, and burnout (Welbourne et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2013),
higher levels of stress (Beattie and Griffin, 2014), reduced creativity (Porath and Enez,
2009), reduced retention (Lim et al., 2008), and turnover intention (Cortina et al., 2002; Reio
and Trudel, 2013). Lewis and Melecha (2011) linked incivility directly to lost productivity.
Uncivil behaviors are common and many organizations often fail to understand
their harmful effects, and most managers are not equipped to deal with them. Pearson
and Porath (2005) found that the targets, witnesses, and additional stakeholders of
incivility report acting in ways that erode organizational values and deplete
organizational resources. Because of their experiences of workplace incivility,
employees noted reductions in work effort, time on the job, and job performance.
Some employees even left their jobs citing the impact of this subtle form of deviance.

Job
Burnout

Turnover
Workplace Intention
Figure 1. Incivility
A model of
workplace incivility,
job performance,
job burnout, and Job
turnover intention Performance
 A meta-analysis of 51 organizational studies found that healthy interpersonal Model of
interactions related positively to job satisfaction (Carr et al., 2003). workplace
While the incivility construct is similar to other forms of misbehavior such as
emotional abuse, bullying, sexual harassment, and workplace violence, the separation
incivility
of this form of workplace mistreatment largely relates to the ambiguous nature of the
behaviors. Organizations often overlook forms of workplace incivility because of the
differences in perception of the various behaviors, creating a hidden and dangerous 1257
dynamic in the workplace.

Job burnout
The construct is conceptualized with three components, including emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach and
Leiter, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001). Incivility is expected to be positively associated with
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

job burnout which is a predictor of turnover intention across a number of industries

(Cropanzano et al., 2003). Chen et al. (2013) found a negative relationship between
workplace incivility and work engagement. As an individual disengages from work,
job burnout is likely to occur. It follows that burnout mediates the relationship between
incivility and turnover intention. Kim and Stoner (2008) found that supportive job
conditions interact with job burnout in predicting turnover intention.

Turnover intention
Employee turnover refers to the phenomena of employees leaving an organization
voluntarily (Shaw et al., 2005). An employee’s decision to leave an organization is costly
for both the individual and the organization (Lee et al., 2004). Three basic components
are generally considered when computing employee turnover costs, including
separation costs, replacement costs, and training costs (Cascio, 2000). Steel et al.
(2002) noted that the average rate of employee turnover in the USA is around
15 percent; however, this varies by different industries.
Evidence indicates that organizations that promote cultures that emphasize
interpersonal relationships have higher voluntary survivor rates than those that do not
(Sheridan, 1992). Hansen (1993) found evidence that victims of workplace abuse were
likely to consider voluntarily leaving the organization either by transferring from the
facility or voluntarily resigning from the company. As discussed before, as an
employee disengages from work due to high incivility, job burnout is likely to occur
which may lead to turnover intention. In other words incivility leads to burnout,
which in turn, leads to turnover intention.

Job performance
Existing studies that used self-report measures of incivility and criterion variables
neglected to investigate the relationship between this construct and job performance.
This is due to the difficulty of collecting data on performance from a separate source
which is generally supervisors. Two studies reported negative correlations between
workplace incivility and job performance. Porath and Enez’s (2009) study found
that workplace incivility leads to reduced job performance. Another study by Porath
et al. (2015) reported that “people who perceived a colleague as civil would be more
likely to seek that person out for work advice and to see that person as a leader. The
more the individual was perceived as civil by others in his or network, the better his or
her performance” (p. 1527). These studies indicate that that incivility reduces job
performance of employees.
 JMD Hypotheses
35,10 On the basis of the preceding literature review, we formulate the following two
hypotheses:
H1. Workplace incivility is negatively associated with job performance.
H2. Job burnout mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and
1258 turnover intentions.
Figure 1 shows the relationships among workplace incivility, job performance, job
burnout, and turnover intentions. The solid lines indicate significant relationships
between latent variables that are expected to be significant. The broken lines indicate
indirect relationships between latent variables that are expected to be nonsignificant.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

Method
Sample and procedure
The data for the present study were collected from 223 triads (employed undergraduate
business administration students from a southeastern university in the USA,
their colleagues in organizations, and their common supervisors). Their average age
and work experience with present supervisor were 22.65 (SD ¼ 6.63) and 2.02
(SD ¼ 6.95), respectively. Forty-four percent of the students were female. The
respondents were from various industries including manufacturing, service, healthcare,
hospitality, and finance.

Measurement
Workplace incivility. This was measured with the seven-item instrument developed by
Cortina et al. (2001). The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (never ¼ 1,
occasionally ¼ 2, often ¼ 3, regularly ¼ 4, most of the time ¼ 5). Sample items include:
“How often in the past year has incivility occurred at _____ such as acting rude or
discourteously,” “How often in the past year have verbal or written threats occurred at
______ including incidents of shouting, swearing, threatening emails, or attempts to
provoke arguments.” The scale was created by averaging the responses to the seven
items and a higher score indicated greater workplace incivility. In the present study,
the Cronbach α internal consistency reliability of this scale was 0.89.
Job burnout. We adopted nine of the 23 items of emotional exhaustion subscale from
the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (Maslach and Jackson, 1982) to measure job
burnout. We did not use the other two components – depersonalization and lack of
personal accomplishment. We computed a confirmatory factor analysis with the three
components of the MBI, but the fit indexes were very poor. We improved the fit indexes
of our model after dropping the depersonalization and lack of personal accomplishment
components. It is our position that emotional exhaustion – not the other two
components – is an excellent measure of job burnout. Participants responded to a
seven-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not much like me … 7 ¼ very much like me). Sample items
of the subscale were, “I feel emotionally drained from my work,” and “I feel I’m working
too hard at my job.” The scale was created by averaging the responses to the items and
a higher score indicated greater emotional exhaustion. In the present study, the
Cronbach α internal consistency reliability of this scale was 0.89.
Turnover intention. This was measured with five items developed by the study. Each
item was ranked on a five-point scale (strongly agree ¼ 5 … strongly disagree ¼ 1).
 Sample items for the scale are, “It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next Model of
year,” and “If I was completely free to choose, I would prefer to continue working in this workplace
organization” (reverse coded). The scale was created by averaging the responses to the
items and a higher score indicated greater turnover intention. In the present study, the
incivility
Cronbach α internal consistency reliability of this subscale was 0.79.
Job performance. This was measured with the nine items of job performance
subscale adopted from the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale (Gibson et al., 1970). 1259
This subscale measures a subordinate’s promotability and quality and quantity of
work. Gibson et al. (1970) provided evidence of adequate psychometric properties of the
instrument. The nine-item questionnaire was completed by the common supervisor of
the student and his/her colleague in the organization. The items are cast on a three-
point Likert scale. The scale was created by averaging the responses to the items and a
higher score indicated greater job performance. In the present study, the Cronbach α
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

internal consistency reliability of this scale was 0.70.

Overall, the internal consistency reliability coefficients of the four study variables,
that ranged between 0.70 and 0.89, were satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978).

Analysis and results

The first part of the analysis was designed to test the psychometric properties of the
measures of incivility, job burnout, turnover intention, and job performance. The
second part of the analysis was designed to test the two study hypotheses.
Data analyses were performed with SPSS 24 and LISREL 9.2 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom,
1996a, b) statistical packages.
Linear structural relations (LISREL) is a mathematical-statistical software package
for computing confirmatory factor analysis on manifest variables (questionnaire items
for the present study) and for computing structural equations models with latent
variables (the four study variables computed from questionnaire items). The package
allows scholars to test their models (theories) with manifest and latent variables.

Validity assessment (measurement model)

We computed two confirmatory factor analyses: a single- and a four-factor analyses of
the measures. Results show acceptable fit indexes for the four factors, not the one
factor (see Table I). In other words, the data confirms the existence of four factors

Measurement model
Statistic 1-factor 4-factors Structural equations model

χ /df
2
18.85 1.24 1.10
RMSEA 0.30 0.04 0.02
RMSR 1.12 0.03 0.03
Normed fit index 0.37 0.97 0.97
Comparative fit index 0.38 0.99 0.99
Incremental fit index 0.39 0.99 0.99
Relative fit index 0.12 0.94 0.95
Goodness of fit index 0.73 0.98 0.98
Notes: n ¼ 211. RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation;, RMSR, root mean square residual; Table I.
χ2: 1, factor solution (20 df) ¼ 377.02, p o0.001; 4, factor solution (14 df) ¼ 17.34, p W0.23; SEM LISREL summary
(17 df) ¼ 18.71, p W0.34 statistics
 JMD (incivility, burnout, turnover intention, and performance). The one-factor analysis
35,10 confirms that all the items do not significantly load on a one factor.
In order to conclude that the four factors are valid, values for the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) and root mean square residual (RMSR) should
be low and generally ⩽ 0.07. The values for other fit indexes, such as normed fit index
(NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and goodness of fit
1260 index (GFI) should be ⩾0.90. If these conditions are satisfied, one can assume that the
four-factor model (incivility, burnout, turnover intention, and performance) fits the
data adequately.
As expected, the fit indexes for the single factor solution were unsatisfactory
(RMSEA ¼ 0.30, RMSR ¼ 0.17, NFI ¼ 0.38, CFI ¼ 0.38, IFI ¼ 0.39, GFI ¼ 0.73). The fit
indexes for the four-factor solution were all satisfactory (RMSEA ¼ 0.04, RMSR ¼ 0.03,
NFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.99, IFI ¼ 0.99, GFI ¼ 0.98). Overall, these indexes indicate that the
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

26 manifest variables were indicators of the four latent variables.

Convergent validity. The average variance extracted by all the items loading on a
given factor measures convergent validity and should exceed 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker,
1981; Carr, 2002). These values were averaged for factors and all of the average R2
exceeded 0.71, which is adequate for supporting convergent validity.
This validity for the four latent variables was also assessed by examining whether
each item had a statistically significant factor loading on its specified factor
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Factor loadings were highly significant, with a
minimum z-value of 5.19 ( p o 0.001). These results support the convergent validity of
the subscales.
Discriminant validity. In one test for discriminant validity the squared correlations
between factors should be less than the average variance extracted for each factor
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Carr, 2002). Results show that in each sample there is strong
support for the discriminant validity among the four latent variables.
A second test for discriminant validity involves pair-wise comparisons of factors
using a χ2 difference test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). For each pair of factors two
models are developed. In one model the two factors are defined by their
respective items. In the second model, the correlation between the factors is
constrained to 1.00. The χ2 difference test can be applied to test if the appropriately
defined two-factor model provides statistically better fit than the constrained model.
In each pair-wise comparison of factors, the constrained model resulted in a
significantly higher χ2 value supporting discriminant validity. The threshold value for
this χ2 difference test ( p o 0.05) is a χ2 of 3.84 with one degree of freedom. This test
supported factor discrimination for all factors. Overall, there is adequate support for
discriminant validity.

Univariate normality
The sample exhibited a high degree of univariate normality with skewness and
kurtosis statistics well within the acceptable levels of one and seven for all items
(Curran et al., 1996).

Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients

Table II shows the descriptive statistics for the study, such as means, SD, Cronbach
and indicator reliabilities, intercorrelation of the four study variables, and variance
inflation factor (VIF).
 Indicator and internal consistency reliabilities. Each item has a reported R2 that Model of
measures the item’s variance explained by the factor. This measure of indicator workplace
reliability should be greater than 0.50 for each of the indicators (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). The R2s for all the manifest variables were above 0.50 with a range of 0.60-0.82.
incivility
These reliabilities were judged sufficient. The internal consistency reliability
coefficients of the four scales/subscales, as assessed with Cronbach α, ranged
between 0.70 and 0.89. Overall, these coefficients are satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978). 1261
The intercorrelations of the four variables which ranged between −0.02 and 0.43.
Two of the six correlations were not significant. The VIFs (ranged between 1.92 and
4.38) were less than 10.00 which indicate that multicollinearity was not a problem.

Structural equations model

Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

The model presented in Figure 1 was tested with a LISREL 9.2. Table III shows the
results. First, all the links indicated by the solid and broken lines were tested and the
links indicated by the solid, not the broken lines, were significant. The link between job
burnout and job performance ( β ¼ 0.08) and between incivility and turnover intention
( β ¼ 12) were nonsignificant. Second, we tested the model which had links indicated by
the solid lines which provided support to the two study hypotheses.
H1 is concerned with the negative effect of workplace incivility to job performance.
As shown in Table III, the path coefficient from incivility to job performance ( β ¼ −0.21)
was negative and significant. This path coefficient provided full support for H1.
H2 is concerned with the mediation effect of job burnout on the relationship between
workplace incivility and turnover intention. As shown in Table III, the path coefficients
from incivility to job burnout ( β ¼ 0.37) and from job burnout to intent to leave a job
( β ¼ 0.53) were positive and significant. The link between incivility and turnover
intention was nonsignificant. These relationships indicate the mediation effect of job
burnout on the incivility – turnover relationship which provided support for H2.

Variables M SD α IR 1 2 3 4 VIF

1. Workplace incivility 1.85 0.80 0.89 0.82 1.00 4.38

2. Job performance 2.48 0.35 0.70 0.62 –0.17 1.00 1.92 Table II.
3. Job burnout 3.28 1.30 0.83 0.72 0.36 –0.02 1.00 2.04 Mean, SD, Cronbach
4. Turnover intention 2.91 1.07 0.79 0.68 0.15 –0.05 0.43 1.00 2.64 α, and indicator
Notes: n ¼ 223. Workplace incivility and turnover intention were measured on a five-point scale, job reliabilities,
burnout was measured on a seven-point scale, and job performance was measured on a three-point correlations, and
scale. A higher score indicates greater incivility, burnout, turnover intention, and job performance. variance inflation
Correlations ⩾0.15 are significant at p o0.05 (two-tailed) factor

Parameter path β z-value

Incivility→performance −0.21 –2.03*

Incivility→burnout 0.37 4.49*** Table III.
Burnout→turnover 0.53 5.20*** Parameter estimates
Notes: These values are based on the causal model run on the covariance matrix. Incivility, workplace for structural
incivility; burnout, job burnout; turnover, turnover intention. *p o0.05; **p o01; ***p o0.001 equations
 JMD In other words, incivility cannot directly influence turnover, but it has to go through
35,10 burnout (incivility→burnout→turnover).
The fit indexes for the full structural equations model (RMSEA ¼ 0.02,
RMSR ¼ 0.03, χ2/df ¼ 1.10, NFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 1.00, IFI ¼ 1.00, RFI ¼ 0.95, and
GFI ¼ 0.98) were excellent. It should be noted that the χ2 ¼ 19.52 ( p W 0.23) for the
model was nonsignificant indicating strong support for the model. These fit indexes
1262 show that the model, indicated by the solid lines in Figure 1, fits the data well.

Discussion
This was a preliminary investigation to test a model of workplace incivility and its
relationships to job performance, burnout, and turnover intention. Results provided full
support for the model portrayed in Figure 1: workplace incivility was negatively
associated with job performance and it was positively associated with job burnout,
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

which in turn, was positively associated with turnover intention. No previous study
tested the relationships presented in Figure 1 with data from three sources. The results
of the study were not influenced by common method variance which is a serious
problem in research on management and other social sciences.
Results provide acceptable evidence of convergent and discriminant validities and
internal consistency and indicator reliabilities of the four measures. Evidence from the
present study and the existing studies provided support for construct validity of the
four measures (cf. Bagozzi et al., 1991).

Implications for management

The implications of the study are that appropriate interventions are needed to enhance
supervisors’ social skills which is associated with one’s ability to speak in a clear and
convincing manner that involves knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.
Social skills also involve building and maintaining positive relationships, to act properly
in human relations, to deal with problems without demeaning any organizational
members (Rahim, 2014). Social skills ability enables a supervisor to interact with their
relevant internal and external environments to enhance performance and satisfaction of
employees. Studies by Baron and Markham (2000) and Baron and Tang (2009) suggest
that entrepreneurs’ social skills help them not only to interact effectively with others, but
also play a role in their success. Training in social intelligence for supervisors is essential
in improving social skills necessary to reduce incivility.
Organizations in the private sector are making appropriate changes in their
organizational culture that provides rewards for learning social and diplomatic skills.
These changes in the culture and appropriate training in social skills should encourage
managers to reduce their own and employees’ incivility behaviors needed for
improving their subordinates job performance, burnout, and turnover intention.
Even though education and training are useful for reducing supervisors’ incivility
behaviors, there is a limit to what managers can learn to reduce their incivil behaviors.
To deal with this problem, organizations may have to adapt the policy of recruiting
managers with high social and diplomatic skills necessary to reduce workplace incivility.

Directions for future research

Further research is needed to enhance our understanding of the relationships of
managers’ uncivil behaviors and their effects on leadership effectiveness. Other
criterion variables for future research should include some indicators of subordinates’
 organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction with supervision, and organizational Model of
justice. An important area of future research concerns carefully designing and workplace
evaluating the effects of selection and training on workplace incivility in enhancing
the aforementioned criterion variables. Field experiments are particularly useful in
incivility
evaluating the effects of incivility training on individual and organizational outcomes.
There is also need for scenario-based and laboratory studies that control some of the
extraneous variables to better understand the effects of supervisors’ incivility. Also, 1263
it will be useful to investigate the differences in the perceptions of subordinates
regarding the performance of strategic, transformational, and other types of leaders
with low and high incivility.

Strengths and limitations

One of the strengths of this study is that the four measures were collected from three
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

separate respondents at different time periods which should help to overcome the
problems of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The presence of common
method variance may inflate correlations between endogenous and exogenous
variables. Confirmatory factor analyses of the manifest variables indicated the absence
of common method variance. If common method variance was present, the manifest
variables will significantly load on a single factor, not the four a priori factors.
Limitations of this field study should be noted. Data were collected from a
convenience sample might limit generalizability of the results.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Andersson, L. 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.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Philips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.
Baron, R.A. and Markham, G.D. (2000), “Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance
entrepreneurs’ success”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 106-116.
Baron, R.A. and Tang, J. (2009), “Entrepreneurs’ social skills and new venture performance:
mediating mechanisms and cultural generality”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 282-306.
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.
Bibi, Z., Karim, J. and Din, S. (2013), “Workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior:
moderating role of emotional intelligence”, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 317-334.
Carr, C.L. (2002), “A psychometric evaluation of the expectations, perceptions, and difference-
scores generated by the IS–Adapted SERVQUAL Instrument”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 281-296.
Carr, J.Z., Schmidt, A.M., Ford, J.K. and De Shon, R.P. (2003), “Climate perceptions matter:
a meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
individual level work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 605-619.
Cascio, W.F. (2000), Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior in
Organizations, 4th ed., PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.
 JMD 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,
35,10 Vol. 56, pp. 1199-1219.
Cortina, L.M., Lonsway, K.A., Magley, V.J., Freeman, L.V., Collinsworth, L.L., Hunter, M. and
Fitzgerald, F.F. (2002), “What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts”,
Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 235-270.
1264 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. and Langhout, R. (2001), “Incivility in the workplace:
incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. and Byrne, Z.S. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, p. 160.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

Curran, P.J., West, S.G. and Finch, J.F. (1996), “The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and
specification error in confirmatory factor analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 16-29.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gibson, D.L., Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V. and Lofquist, L.H. (1970), Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfactoriness Scales, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Hansen, R.J. (1993), “Personal harassment in the Canadian force: 1992 survey”, Working Paper
No. 93‐1, Canadian Forces Personnel Applied Research Unit, Willowdale.
Holm, K., Torkelson, E. and Backström, M. (2015), “Models of workplace incivility: the
relationships to instigated incivility and negative outcomes”, BioMed Research
International, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Kim, H. and Stoner, M. (2008), “Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: effects of
role stress, job autonomy and social support”, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 5-25.
Kim, S.Y., Kim, J.K. and Park, K.O. (2013), “Path analysis for workplace incivility, empowerment,
burnout, and organizational commitment of hospital nurses”, Journal of Korean Academy
of Nursing Administration, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 555-564.
Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Sablynski, C., Burton, J. and Holtom, B. (2004), “The effects of job
embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences,
and voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722.
Lewis, P.S. and Malecha, A. (2011), “The impact of workplace incivility on the work environment,
manager skill, and productivity”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 41-47.
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. 97-107.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (2008), “Early predictors of job burnout and engagement”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 498-512.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 397-422.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pearson, C.M. and Porath, C.L. (2005), “On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: no time for nice? Think again”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 7-18.
 Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases Model of
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
workplace
Porath, C.L., Gerbasi, A. and Schorch, S.I. (2015), “The effect of civility on advice, leadership, and
incivility
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 1527-1541.
Porath, C.L. and Enez, A. (2009), “Overlooked but not untouched: how rudeness reduces
onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks”, Organizational Behavior and 1265
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2012), “Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace
incivility and the impact of hierarchical status”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 326-357.
Rahim, M.A. (2014), “A structural equations model of leaders’ social intelligence and creative
performance”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 44-56.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 18:43 09 March 2017 (PT)

Reich, T.G. and Hershcovis, M.S. (2015), “Observing workplace incivility and job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 203-215.
Reio, T.G. and Trudel, J. (2013), “Workplace incivility and conflict management styles: predicting
job performance, organizational commitment and turnover intent”, International Journal of
Adult Vocational Education and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 15-37.
Shaw, J.D., Duffy, M.K., Johnson, J.L. and Lockhart, D.E. (2005), “Turnover, social capital losses,
and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 594-606.
Sheridan, J.E. (1992), “Organizational culture and employee retention”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 1036-1056.
Steel, R.P., Griffin, R.W. and Hom, P.W. (2002), “Practical retention policy for the practical
manager”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-162.
Tepper, B. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Welbourne, J.L., Gangadharan, A. and Sariol, A.M. (2015), “Ethnicity and cultural values as
predictors of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 205-217.

Further reading
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1989), LISREL 7 Users Reference Guide, Scientific Software,
Mooresville, IN.
Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (2082), The Cost of Living, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2010), “The cost of bad behavior”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 64-71.

Corresponding author
Dana M. Cosby can be contacted at: Dana.Cosby@wku.edu

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