Bashir Et Al. - 2020 - Job-Related and Nonjob-Related Gossips Among Low-Ranked Employees in Unionized Service Organization
Bashir Et Al. - 2020 - Job-Related and Nonjob-Related Gossips Among Low-Ranked Employees in Unionized Service Organization
Bashir Et Al. - 2020 - Job-Related and Nonjob-Related Gossips Among Low-Ranked Employees in Unionized Service Organization
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to INTRODUCTION
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal Workplace incivility acts as a global paradox that exists in business organizations, especially with
Frontiers in Psychology a diverse cultural background (Cortina et al., 2001; Schilpzand et al., 2014). Among different types
Received: 04 December 2019 of deviant behaviors, workplace incivility (Blau and Andersson, 2005) is the most hazardous for
Accepted: 21 April 2020 individuals/organizations. Williams and Anderson (1991) defined incivility as “the low intensity
Published: 11 June 2020 deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms of
Citation: mutual respect.” Due to such low-intensity deviant behaviors, organizations bear direct and indirect
Bashir M, Shabbir R, Saleem S, costs in millions of dollars (Porath and Pearson, 2013). Extant literature has documented toxic
Abrar M, Saqib S and Gill SH (2020) impacts of incivility on organization, group, and individual-level outcomes (Schilpzand et al., 2014).
Job-Related and Nonjob-Related Individuals experiencing incivility tend to show less citizenship behavior (Dalal, 2005), higher
Gossips Among Low-Ranked
employees turnover (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008), high level of stress (Bowling and Beehr, 2006),
Employees in Unionized Service
Organization. Front. Psychol. 11:994.
lower level of engagement (Giumetti et al., 2013), lower job satisfaction (Miner-Rubino and Reed,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00994 2010), marital dissatisfaction that cause work–family conflict (Ferguson, 2012), etc. Terlicki (2011)
identified several individual and work characteristics as studies call for examining the role of hierarchies in shaping
antecedents of workplace incivility. Lack of communication skills high- and low-rank service employees toward mistreatment
and diminished intellectual capital might have paved the way for in a cultural setting (Moon et al., 2018). Although existing
the ascension of incivility at the workplace, and experience of body of knowledge pertaining to incivility has addressed
incivility might lead to feelings of hostility, aggression, violence, various cognitive, attitudinal, and behavior outcomes (Schilpzand
depression, and other workplace and societal outcomes (Akella et al., 2014), its relationship with job- and nonjob-related
and Lewis, 2019). gossips has not been explored yet. Based on the above
Previous research has investigated the consequences of arguments, this study investigated the response of lower-level
incivility from affective, attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral employees toward workplace incivility regarding job-/nonjob-
perspectives of the victim (Schilpzand et al., 2014). Majority of related gossips through mediating mechanism of psychological
these findings are based on the studies that have been conducted contract violation (PCV) and cynicism in unionized public
in Western and developed countries, such as United States service organization of a patriarchal culture. Lastly, based on
(Viotti et al., 2018), Australia (Griffin, 2010), China (Chen et al., the recommendations of Schilpzand et al. (2014), we have
2013), New Zealand (Griffin, 2010), Canada (Leiter et al., 2011), selected a unionized public sector organization that is providing
Singapore (Lim et al., 2018), and United Kingdom (Totterdell utility services in a high-power distance nation. Although the
et al., 2012). The growing interest of scholars in the incivility extant research on incivility represents respondents from diverse
phenomenon shows that it has become a global issue (Schilpzand professions and industries (Schilpzand et al., 2014) across the
et al., 2014); however, the South Asian perspective has been globe, perceptions of low-rank unionized employees have not
ignored at large by researchers (Ghosh, 2017). A few studies been explored yet.
have been conducted on workplace incivility employing the
Asian samples (e.g., Handoyo et al., 2018; Loh et al., 2019). Our
study, however, greatly varies from the previous studies, as these THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
have been conducted in Australia, Singapore, and Indonesia. DEVELOPMENT
Loh et al. (2019) assessed the impact of workplace incivility
on emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, and work withdrawal Several theoretical frameworks provide support to strengthen
using a sample of Australian and Singaporean employees working our arguments based on the social exchange theory, affective
in various organizations. Handoyo et al. (2018) developed events theory, work environment hypothesis, and job demands–
and validated workplace incivility scale using a sample from resources (JD-R) model. First, this study is consistent with
Indonesia. Moreover, the above-mentioned studies dealt with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) as “reciprocity exists when
different variables and were placed in a different context. Our one individual reacts to others.” This reciprocity is based on
study, on the other hand, is conducted in Pakistan, a Southeast an exchange of benefits that are socioeconomic in nature;
Asian country. Thus, we make an important contribution by thus, lower-level employees experiencing incivility could
placing our study in Southeast Asian context. indulge in gossips either job- or nonjob-related gossips
Therefore, owing to several reasons, this study has attempted as negative reciprocity. Second, affective events theory
to investigate the largely ignored incivility phenomenon and its (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) provided a theoretical
consequences from a South Asian perspective. First, South Asian lens that clarified the relationship between workplace
societies are characterized by high-power distance (Hofstede, incivility, gossips, cynicism, and PCV. Therefore, events of
1983), and power abuse can foster incivility because high-power mistreatment experienced by lower-level employees could trigger
individuals believe that they are exempted from the moral rules negative emotions, and individuals might indulge in gossips
(Olekalns et al., 2014). Second, incivility is more frequently (Lim et al., 2008).
experienced by the low-ranked individuals (Cortina et al., 2001), Third, the work environment hypothesis (Leymann and
and relationship orientation of Asian societies, which stems from Gustafsson, 1996) explains the underlying phenomenon of
identity-based interaction and personalization, can increase the workplace incivility in Asian societies. Characteristics of
occurrence of incivility (Kakar and Kakar, 2007; Agarwal and perpetrator and targets are not the underlying cause behind
Gupta, 2018). These identity-based and personalized interactions, workplace incivility; rather, it is an outcome of prevailing
kinship, caste, social class, and religion might lead the lower-level environmental conditions within organizations such as high-
employees to suffer from negative outcomes (Ghosh, 2017). power distance, patriarchal culture, or socioeconomic status,
Third, uncivil behavior in the Western countries may not especially in the case of lower-level employees (e.g., gender,
be considered uncivil in Asia (Ghosh, 2017), as dissimilarities caste, religion, and regional origin). Lastly, the JD-R model
in social and cultural orientation may have an impact on (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) provides a theoretical base
the perception of workplace incivility, and it can be culture to explain the reciprocal link between workplace incivility
specific (Lim and Lee, 2011). Therefore, in Asian societies, and gossips. In Asian societies, lower-level employees might
low-ranked employees might face severe discrimination at the involve in gossips when they deplete their emotional resources
workplace (LasisiOlukayode et al., 2014) due to their minority while coping with mistreatment. According to Leiter et al.
sociocultural status. Hence, investigating the phenomenon of (2011), negative events reduce individual’s resources, which can
workplace incivility and its negative outcomes in individuals lead lower-level employees to involve in gossips. Thus, high
of minority sociocultural status might be fruitful. Current job demands and fewer resources brought exhaustion among
employees by pushing them in a situation to discuss negative shape cynicism on the basis of past experiences of incivility.
aspects (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2d: The relationship between workplace incivility and employees experience incivility in high-power distance and
nonjob-related gossips is mediated by cynicism. patriarchal culture. Thus, we formulate our next hypothesis as
follows:
Workplace Incivility, Psychological H3a: Workplace incivility predicts PCV among low-rank
Contract Violation, and Gossips employees.
The psychological contract is “individual beliefs, shaped by the H3b: The relationship between workplace incivility and job-
organization, regarding terms of an exchange between individuals related gossips is mediated through PCV.
and their organization” (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1998). It
refers to the items and principles in a reciprocal exchange H3c: The relationship between workplace incivility and
agreement among employees and the organization (Robinson nonjob-related a gossip is mediated through PCV.
and Wolfe Morrison, 2000; Johnson and O’Leary-Kelly, 2003;
Tomprou et al., 2012). This unwritten contract is breached
when employees perceived a discrepancy between what he/she MATERIALS AND METHODS
has was promised and what is fulfilled (Agarwal and Bhargava,
2013). This perception of breach prompts negative emotions Participants
about unmet expectations connected with particular promises The sample consisted of lower-level employees who are working
(Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005), leading toward generation in a Power Distribution and Maintenance Company in Pakistan
of negative attitudes (Aykan, 2014). Previous studies have named as Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO). First,
documented its relationship with job satisfaction (Agarwal lower-level employees were selected as target respondents due
and Bhargava, 2013), lowered work engagement (Parzefall to their frequent exposure of incivility within public sector
and Hakanen, 2010), and employee turnover (Ballou, 2013). organizations (LasisiOlukayode et al., 2014). This study was
When such contract is violated, employees feel frustrated and conducted in non-Western settings, and due to relational
disappointed, and they take out their negative emotions and orientation of Asian societies (Kakar and Kakar, 2007), kinship,
feelings about their organizations (Kuo et al., 2015). According caste, class, and religion might influence victims of workplace
to Conway and Briner (2005), breaches could be caused by incivility (Ghosh, 2017). Low-rank employees might experience
poor work environment (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996). Poor incivility at the workplace due to dissimilarities in social
human resource (HR) policies and lack of managerial support and cultural orientation (Lim and Lee, 2011). Therefore,
being a component of work environment can provide room due to higher power distance (Hofstede, 1983), lower-level
for downward mistreatment due to power gaps between low- service employees believe that their voice/say cannot reform
rank employees and their supervisors (Tepper, 2000). This organizational process, and thus, they become pioneer in
mistreatment is directly related to deviant behaviors in the experiencing a breach (Morrison and Robinson, 1997). Moreover,
organization (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Xu et al., 2012) such service-orientated employees are less inclined toward
and puts a strong negative effect on the feelings, emotions, connecting themselves with the top management, which resulted
well-being, attitude, and behavior of employees (Zellars et al., in a breach of contract (Lester et al., 2002).
2002). From an organizational context, individuals are inclined
to confront mistreatments by low-rank perpetrators, but they Procedure
avoid confronting high-rank offenders (Porath et al., 2008). This This study applied probability sampling technique (Bryman and
increases the possibility of engaging in gossips due to high Bell, 2015), and under the umbrella of probability sampling,
potential cost of confrontation against high-rank individuals stratified sampling was used. In Pakistan, The Water and
(Decoster et al., 2013). In social networks, it is difficult Power Development Authority (WAPDA) is the sole authority
to control gossips due to its universal nature. Almost 14% for electricity generation and distribution and one of the
workplace coffee-break chats are gossips, and ∼66% of general largest employers of human resources in Pakistan. A total
talks among employees are related to coworkers (Cole and of 10 distribution companies are working under WAPDA to
Dalton, 2009, cited in Kuo et al., 2015). Negative gossiping provide services across Pakistan, and MEPCO is the largest
can be more dangerous to the organization, as it can create power distribution company with a working strength of 24,854
hostile environment not only for the people who are being employees of various cadres, serving across the 13 districts and
gossiped about but also for those who listen to that gossip a population of 33.3 million approximately. Eight strata were
(Grosser et al., 2012). Gossip results in employee embarrassment framed on the basis of the entire geographical distribution of
and awkwardness because gossip usually carries private and employees/circles for data collection. Fifty respondents were
sensitive topics (Foster, 2004), and mostly, it harms other’s approached from each circle to constitute a sample of 400 (Krejcie
reputation and integrity (Cole and Dalton, 2009). Negative and Morgan, 1970).
gossips are like a toxin in an organization (Yang et al., 2014). Initially, 400 questionnaires were distributed among
Gossips are uncontrollable, and this phenomenon cannot be respondents, keeping in view the general of thumb, i.e., 5–
eliminated because of its ancient embedded human nature from 10 questions against each item/statement of questionnaire.
any context. From the above arguments, it can be assumed A total of 34 items were used in the questionnaire; hence,
that indulging in gossips will be common response when a sample size of 350 was sufficient for inference purposes;
however, a slightly higher sample size was selected. Out of TABLE 1 | Sample description.
the 400 distributed questionnaires, 335 were received back.
Description Frequency Percent
Partially filled and incomplete questionnaires were discarded,
and at the end, a useable sample of 301 responses was retained Gender
for final data analysis. Pilot testing was carried out for 10% Male 288 95%
of the sample size, i.e., 40 respondents. Reliability values were Female 13 5%
within the acceptable range, i.e., >0.60. Due to self-reported Nature of appointment
responses, common method bias (CMB) was likely to prejudice Permanent 261 87%
the results, but using self-reported and single-source measures in Contractual 40 13%
management research is common (Ng and Feldman, 2013). We, Qualification
however, employed several measures to minimize CMB. First, we Intermediate 258 86%
assured respondents regarding confidentiality of their responses; Graduation 35 11%
moreover, to avoid monotonic response, some items were reverse Master 8 3%
coded (Malhotra et al., 2006). The items regarding independent, Age (years)
mediating, and dependent variables were randomly placed in the 22 27 9%
designed questionnaire supported by research model (Papa et al., 23 33 11%
2018). This ensured that respondents could not easily combine 24 108 36%
related items or identify their correlation, which is required for 25 52 17%
attenuating CMB (Chang et al., 2010). 26 30 10%
27 51 16%
Measures Experience (years)
Five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 1 18 6%
5 (strongly agree) was used. Workplace incivility was assessed 2 140 46%
through an eight-item questionnaire developed by Cortina et al. 3 74 25%
(2001) on a scale of every day (5), several times a week (4), 4 18 6%
about once a week (3), once or twice in a month (2), and 5 51 17%
once or twice in a year (1). Sample items include “In your All percentages are rounded up. N = 301.
organization someone put you down or was arrogant to you in
some way,” and “In your organization someone made demeaning, different from that of the permanent ones (relational contract).
rude, or derogatory remarks about you.” The mediating variable Similarly, job experience was also considered as control because
cynicism was assessed by a 12-item questionnaire developed by newly inducted employees can experience incivility up to a great
Brandes et al. (1999), recently used by Bellini et al. (2015) on extent in comparison to the older workers (Laschinger, 2012).
a 5-point Likert scale. Sample items include “I believe that my
organization says one thing does another,” and “when I think Statistical Analysis
about my organization, I feel a sense of anxiety.” The second For understanding complex relationships, it is imperative to
mediating variable PCV was assessed on the basis of the four-item apply a more sophisticated multivariate data methodology for
scale developed by Robinson and Wolfe Morrison (2000). The analysis (Hair et al., 2014). SmartPLS v. 3.2.7 was used to
sample item includes “I feel betrayed by my organization.” The estimate measurement and structural models. Several reasons
two dependent variables, job- and nonjob-related gossips, were were to follow partial least squares structural equation modeling
measured on the basis of scale developed by Kuo et al. (2015) (PLS-SEM) approach. First, PLS-SEM is a substitute approach
having five items for each. The original 20-item version developed to the covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), and it is used where
by Kuo et al. (2015) covers positive and negative aspects of job- a theory is under development, and fundamental purpose is
and nonjob-related gossips; however, this study considered only focused on explaining the variance of outcome constructs (Hair
the negative side pertaining to job- and nonjob-related gossips. et al., 2016). Second, PLS-SEM eliminates requirements regarding
distributional assumptions because data analysis is based non-
Demographic Profile parametric techniques (Hair et al., 2016), and third, it can handle
Respondents were also asked to report their demographic complex models relatively well (Vinzi et al., 2010).
characteristics (Table 1). First of all, the gender of the respondents
was asked from the respondents, and they reported gender
status as “male” or “female.” The transgender option was not RESULTS
considered in this study due to the minute portion of the
workforce. Individuals reported their employment status as Results of SEM have been reported under measurement and
“permanent” or “temporary.” In addition to this, age in years structural models (Hulland, 1999; Chin, 2010). A reflective
and length of experience were also asked from the respondents. measurement model was established, keeping in view the nature
These demographic characteristics were considered as control of hypothesized relationships and the nature of constructs.
variables keeping in view the previous studies that show that the First, the measurement model was assessed on the basis of
psychological contract of temporary staff (transactional) is quite “reliability and validity” (Hair et al., 2016). The reliability of
measurement/outer model is assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, which was less than the threshold value of 0.50. However, if the
rho-A, and composite reliability (CR), whereas validity has scale is newly developed and is in testing phase, then AVE values
been evaluated through convergent validity [outer loadings and between 0.40 and 0.50 can be considered. Moreover, as noted
average variance extracted (AVE)] (Mela and Kopalle, 2002) by Malhotra et al., 2012, AVE is a strict measure of convergent
and discriminant validity (cross-loadings and Fornell–Larcker validity, and convergent validity could be established on the basis
criterion) (Lucas et al., 1996; Hair et al., 2016). All the alpha of CR alone. Thus, lower AVE value for job-related gossips was
coefficients, CR estimates, values of rho-A, and AVE were considered in this study (Table 2).
above their cutoff values (Hair et al., 2013, 2016) except AVE For evaluating discriminant validity, cross-loadings and
of job-related gossips, which was 0.469. Second measure of Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion was assessed. Thus, it was
reliability was assessed through CR (Bacon et al., 1995), and established that square root of AVE of each latent construct was
here, all the values were >0.60, hence approving the reliability higher than the correlations among the latent constructs (Hair
of measurement model (Hulland, 1999). et al., 2011) (Table 3).
For evaluating convergent validity, in the first attempt, items
having outer loadings below 0.708 were checked against each Assessment of Structural Model
variable. Indicators CNC2, CNC4, and CNC12 were deleted To assess the structural model, we employed a bootstrapping
against cynicism due to low outer loading values; similarly, procedure through 5,000 randomly drawn subsamples with
indicator WI6 pertaining to workplace incivility was excluded replacement at 0.05% level of significance (Henseler et al.,
due to low outer loading. Some items such as CNC5, JRG2, JRG3, 2009; Hair et al., 2016). Assessment of the structural model
and WI8 were not dropped in spite of lower outer loading, i.e., has been tested through the coefficient of determination
<0.708, as AVE of respective constructs was within the acceptable (level of R2 ) alternatively called predictive accuracy, effect
range (Hair et al., 2016). AVE of job-related gossips was 0.469, size (f 2 ), predictive relevance Q2 , and path significance
TABLE 2 | Indicator reliability, VIF, composite reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted.
All factor loadings were significant at p < 0.01. VIF, variance inflation factor; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1 Cynicism (0.791)
2 Job-related gossips 0.714 (0.685)
3 Nonjob-related gossip 0.112 0.031 (0.814)
4 Psychological contract violation 0.307 0.461 0.077 (0.812)
5 Workplace incivility 0.342 0.513 0.062 0.411 (0.739)
N = 301. Values at the diagonal (bold and underlined) are square root of AVEs.
(Hair et al., 2013). Multicollinearity could decrease analytical synthesized approaches developed by Hair et al. (2016). No-
impact of predicting construct (Mela and Kopalle, 2002); effect non-mediation was observed in the case of H2d, and
thus, to obtain the best parameter estimation assessment of H3c as neither the direct effect nor the indirect effect was
multicollinearity is very necessary. According to Hair et al. found significant for workplace incivility cynicism nonjob-
(2013), variance inflation factor (VIF) must be <5. Here, related gossips as well as workplace incivility PCV nonjob-
almost all values were less than the cutoff value of +5.0, related gossips. On the other hand, complementary mediation
except indicators CNC3 and WI2 (Table 2). R2 represents was observed due to direct and indirect paths significance
combined effects of exogenous latent variables on endogenous (Table 5) in the case of H2c (workplace incivility cynicism
latent variables. Here, workplace incivility showed 11% change job-related gossips) and H3b (workplace incivility PCV job-
in cynicism, and the combined effect of workplace incivility, related gossips).
cynicism, and PCV on job-related gossips was 62% showing
a substantial effect (Henseler et al., 2009), whereas these Discussion
entire constructs explained only 1% variation in nonjob-related First, the empirical findings of this study showed that lower-level
gossips. Finally, workplace incivility explained 17% variation employees tend to involve in gossips practice, which is related to
in PCV. their job when they experience incivility. These gossips may by
Effect size (f 2 ) is assessed as small, medium, and large regarding colleagues’ poor job performance, carelessness, poor
(Cohen, 1992), and it is expressed as 0.02 (small), 0.15 work engagement, inexperience, and poor job knowledge, poor
(medium), and 0.35 and above (large). Here, very small size interpersonal skills, or lack of job morality (Cole and Dalton,
effect has been observed against nonjob-related gossips; the 2009). Based on empirical grounds, it can be argued that gossip
effect size predicting PCV due to workplace incivility was is considered an important communication device for expressing
medium and small in the case of cynicism. Similarly, effect and managing emotions in organizations, as group members
sizes against job-related gossips due to workplace incivility, consider it as an important channel for sharing information
cynicism, and PCV were observed as small, large, and small, and source to assure social bonding (Yang et al., 2014). These
respectively (Cohen, 1992). Predictive relevance was assessed findings are also in line with the recommendations of Kuo
through Q2 (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1975). Values larger than 0 et al. (2015) that gossip is a common phenomenon at work.
for a certain reflective endogenous latent variable indicate the Almost all employees are found to be engaged in hearing,
path model’s predictive relevance, and in this study, values of making. or otherwise taking part in evaluative comments about
Q2 were >0, implying that the model’s predictive relevance other colleagues who are not present in the formal chit chat
is correct (Chin, 1998). Finally, structural model is assessed or conversation.
on the basis of path estimation (direct, indirect, and total The findings of this study revealed an interesting situation
paths). Table 4 and Figure 1 presents the estimated value regarding the relationship between workplace incivility and
of path coefficients for direct, indirect, and total paths. Here, nonjob-related gossips. In this case, insignificant relationship
the path estimates between workplace incivility, cynicism, was observed. There might be a reason for not involving in
job-related gossips and PCV were significant at p < 0.05 nonjob-related gossips such as discussing the sorrowful life events
(hypotheses H1, H2a, and H3a), whereas the path between of colleagues, illness, poor interaction with children, divorce,
workplace incivility and nonjob-related gossips (H2b) was separation, marital problems, or even poor relationships with
insignificant at p < 0.05 (see Table 4). Similarly mediation family members. The reason for an insignificant relationship
was tested through variance accounted for (VAF) and newly might be the prevalence of Islamic culture in Pakistan, an
Beta p Beta p
H:2c Workplace incivility → cynicism → job-related gossips 0.241 0.00 0.196 0.00 0.531 37% Supported
H:2d Workplace incivility → cynicism → nonjob-related gossips 0.012 0.87 0.032 0.18 0.062 52% Not supported
H:3b Workplace incivility → psychological contract violation → job-related gossips 0.241 0.00 0.076 0.00 0.531 14% Supported
H:3c Workplace incivility → psychological contract violation → nonjob-related gossips 0.012 0.87 0.032 0.51 0.062 52% Not supported
Islamic country where 99% of the population is Muslim, and variables) provides important insights and needs further
in a Muslim society discussing the issues of someone behind investigation in a non-Muslim nation’s context.
him or her is considered unethical and against the preaching
of Islam.
The positive relationship between workplace incivility CONCLUSION
and cynicism was also observed. It implies that employees
experiencing workplace incivility tend to develop negative Based on the empirical findings of this study, it can be concluded
feelings regarding organizational policies, activities, goals, and that workplace incivility develops feelings of cynicism among
performance. These findings are also in line with the argument employees working at lower cadre. Furthermore, employees feel
of the COR theory. Furthermore, these findings also confirm driven toward PCV when they experience incivility within the
that individuals experiencing incivility engage themselves in organizational circuits. This perception regarding PCV increases
negative feelings when they end up using their personal resources the tendency to involve in job-related gossips such as discussing
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). the colleague’s poor job performance, carelessness, poor work
Similarly, a positive relationship among workplace incivility engagement, inexperience and poor job knowledge, poor
and PCV has been observed, which implied that individuals interpersonal skills, or lack of job morality. The relationship of
experiencing workplace incivility tend to develop perception that workplace incivility in this study has been found much stronger
their employer has violated the unwritten agreement and they with the other constructs of this study, i.e., nonjob-related
have been betrayed by their employer. The preposition of social gossips, cynicism, and PCV. The relationship of workplace
exchange theory (Blau, 1964) that individuals tend to build links incivility is very weak with nonjob-related gossips. Thus, it can
within organizational environment on the basis of exchange of also be concluded that individuals tend to involve in job-related
socioeconomic benefits is confirmed. The complementary or gossips in spite of nonjob-related gossips while experiencing the
partial mediation between workplace incivility and job-related incivility at workplace.
gossips through cynicism showed that workplace incivility has
small impact on job-related gossips through cynicism. The no- Theoretical Contributions
non-mediation situation for workplace incivility and nonjob- From a theoretical perspective, this study has several
related gossips under cynicism and PCV (both mediating contributions. First, this study has attempted to investigate
the impact of workplace incivility in Asian society, which is poor relationship with family members when they experienced
characterized by personalized and identity-based interactions incivility at the workplace. This finding is contradictory to the
(Kakar and Kakar, 2007). Here, this study supported the existing existing literature (Kuo et al., 2015).
literature that personalized and identity-based interactions due
to kinship, caste, class, and religion may influence victims of Practical Implications
workplace incivility who may suffer from negative outcomes such The outcomes of this study portray that employees experiencing
as cynicism, PCV, and job-related gossips (Ghosh, 2017). Second, incivility at the workplace tend to spread gossips regarding
perception of low-rank employees of a large public sector negative aspects of the job such as colleague’s poor job
utility-based service organization was considered regarding performance and carelessness. Thus, it is obvious that
workplace incivility by focusing on individuals of minority individuals experiencing incivility will engage in activities
sociocultural status (LasisiOlukayode et al., 2014), which is that are non-productive for both, organization and individuals;
a unique theoretical contribution of the study. This study thus, management should try to curtail the prevalence of the
confirmed that employees working at the low ranks of the incivility in any form (bullying, aggression, abusive supervision)
organizational hierarchy in a service industry are less likely or from any source downward, upward, or lateral, within
to be able to connect themselves with the management of the the organizational circuits in order to lessen the negative
organization and hence engage in gossips (Lester et al., 2002). consequences. Furthermore, employees also tend to develop
Third, this study also contributed to existing literature by negative thinking regarding employers when they experience
exploring the mechanisms underlying the workplace incivility– incivility so that it might reduce the positive image of the
gossips relationship. Furthermore, this study has attempted organization; thus, organizations should also formulate policies
to answer the research calls raised by various researchers by and procedures to eradicate workplace incivility. Technology can
exploring the relationship among PCV, job-related gossips, help organizations tackle incivility issues at the workplace, so use
and nonjob-related gossips (Kuo et al., 2015) and investigating of electronic surveillance must be enhanced in order to control
the uncivil behaviors from South Asian perspective (Ghosh, the incivility at workplace.
2017). Finally, this set of variables was not tested before; thus,
this study has tested a new set of variables in new settings
by quantifying the impact of workplace incivility on PCV, Limitations and Future Research
organizational cynicism, job-related gossips, and nonjob-related Directions
gossips of low-ranked employees working in the public sector Last but not the least, this study also has some limitations,
organizations of Pakistan. just like other cross-sectional investigations. First, data were
The findings of this study supported the argument that collected under a survey method through a cross-sectional
individuals tend to involve in negative activities (try to cope) design, which does not confirm causality; thus, future research
when the job demands are very high, and resources to meet must follow longitudinal research design to confirm the causality.
these demands are low. It will create exhaustion among Furthermore, only lower-level employees were approached for
employees (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Thus, this study data collection, which is a major limitation of this study;
endorsed the JD-R model in explaining the link between in the future, employees from other hierarchical levels must
incivility and gossips (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007); it is also be approached for data collection. Moreover, employees
also a theoretical contribution of the study. Furthermore, of a public sector organization were the population of this
this study has also tested the phenomenon of social exchange study where bureaucratic environment has a higher power
theory (Blau, 1964) and endorsed that employees tend to distance, which might be a cause of incivility (Lammers and
build links within the organizational environment based Stapel, 2009); thus, exploring the perceptions of the employees
on socioeconomic benefits. In addition to this, the present belonging to the private sector will bring important insights
study also endorsed the affective events theory (Weiss and into the literature in the future. Future studies must focus on
Cropanzano, 1996), which explains the phenomena of emotional nonjob-related gossips as dependent variable in other settings.
reactions to the specific events that occur at the workplace. In the future, other dependent variables pertaining to coping
This study confirmed that individuals experiencing incivility strategies could be investigated along with these variables.
show negative behaviors in the shape of negative job-related Furthermore, employees’ resilience could also be examined in
gossips, but relationship of incivility with nonjob-related future studies. An additional constraint was the small size
gossips was found insignificant, which is in contradiction of the sample for this study. A large sample size might
with the findings of previous researchers (Pate et al., 2003). bring important results for theoretical and practical insights.
Moreover, the results showed that PCV did not drive Generalizability of these findings may be limited owing to
individuals to indulge in nonjob-related gossips; this is also the small size of the sample and a particular population.
a contribution of the study. Thus, the generalizability of these results must be viewed only
The present study has contributed an interesting finding with great caution. Perhaps, a better picture would have been
into the literature that lower-level employees in Asian societies obtained if other sectors have been taken into consideration,
do not spread nonjob-related gossips such as discussing the as workplace incivility is a more common phenomenon that
sorrowful life events of colleagues, illness, and poor interaction usually prevails in all organizations and across all cultures
with children, divorce, separation, marital problems, or even (Cortina et al., 2001).
REFERENCES The Science, ed. J. Greenberg (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers), 247–281.
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: bases and consequences. Genet. Soc. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). “The vindication of gossip,” in Good Gossip, eds R. F.
Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 126:269. Goodman and A. Ben-Ze’ev (Kansas: University Press of Kansas), 11–24.
Agarwal, U. A., and Bhargava, S. (2013). Effects of psychological contract breach Blau, G., and Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace
on organizational outcomes: moderating role of tenure and educational levels. incivility. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78, 595–614. doi: 10.1348/096317905X26822
Vikalpa 38, 13–26. doi: 10.1177/0256090920130102 Blau, P. (1964). Power and Exchange In Social Life. New York, NY: J Wiley & Sons.
Agarwal, U. A., and Gupta, R. K. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of Bowles, H. R., and Gelfand, M. (2010). Status and the evaluation of workplace
psychological contract: case study of an indian organization. Thunderbird deviance. Psychol. Sci. 21, 49–54. doi: 10.1177/0956797609356509
Intern. Bus. Rev. 60, 175–191. doi: 10.1002/tie.21870 Bowling, N. A., and Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s
Akella, D., and Lewis, V. J. (2019). The modern face of workplace incivility. Organ. perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:998.
Manag. J. 16, 55–60. doi: 10.1080/15416518.2019.1604202 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Andersson, L. M., and Pearson, C. M. (1999). Effect of Tit for Tat?? the spiraling in Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R., and Dean, J. (1999). Does Employee Cynicism Matter?
the workplace incivility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24, 452–471. doi: 10.2307/259136 Employee And Supervisor Perspectives On Work Outcomes. Philadelphia, PA:
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., and Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to Eastern Academy of Management.
personal offense: the effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford
status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:52. University Press.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.52 Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., and Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: common
Aykan, E. (2014). Effects of perceived psychological contract breach on turnover method variance in international business research. J. Intern. Bus. Stud. 41,
intention: intermediary role of loneliness perception of employees. Proc. Soc. 178–184. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Behav. Sci. 150, 413–419. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.040 Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., and Hong, Y. (2013).
Bacon, D. R., Sauer, P. L., and Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in Self-love’s lost labor: a self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Acad.
structural equations modeling. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 55, 394–406. doi: 10. Manag. J. 56, 1199–1219. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0906
1177/0013164495055003003 Chiaburu, D. S., and Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs,
of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 22, 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115 and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1082. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Ballou, N. S. (2013). The Effects Of Psychological Contract Breach On Job Outcomes. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
San Jose: San Jose State University. modeling. Modern Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336.
Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white:” understanding Chin, W. W. (2010). “How to write up and report PLS analyses,” in Handbook of
the consequences of faculty cynicism. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 6, 9–32. doi: Partial Least Squares, eds V. Esposito Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang
10.5465/amle.2007.24401700 (Berlin: Springer), 655–690. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
Bellini, D., Ramaci, T., and Bonaiuto, M. (2015). The restorative effect of the Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull.
environment on organizational cynicism and work engagement. J. Hum. 112:155.
Resour. Sustain. Stud. 3:124. doi: 10.4236/jhrss.2015.33017 Cole, J. M., and Dalton, J. (2009). “Idle women’s chat? Gender and gossip social
Bennett, R. J., and Robinson, S. L. (2003). “The past, present, and future section,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the British Psychological
of workplace deviance research,” in Organizational Behavior: The State Of Society, Kent.
Conway, N., and Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding Psychological Contracts At Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management
Work: A Critical Evaluation Of Theory And Research. Oxford: Oxford University research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20, 195–204. doi:
Press. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::aid-smj13>3.0.co;2-7
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., and Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility Johnson, J. L., and O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological
in the workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6:64. doi: contract breach and organizational cynicism: not all social exchange violations
10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 are created equal. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 627–647. doi: 10.1002/job.207
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., and Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: examining Kakar, S., and Kakar, K. (2007). The Indians. New Delhi: Penguin.
psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for
90:774. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.774 research activities. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 30, 607–610. doi: 10.1177/
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational 001316447003000308
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., and Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in
90:1241. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241 the workplace and the implications for HR management: a study of gossip
Dean, J. W. Jr., Brandes, P., and Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. and its relationship to employee cynicism. Intern. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 26,
Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 341–352. 2288–2307. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.985329
Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L., and Tripp, T. M. (2013). Kurland, N. B., and Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: toward a model of
Standing by your organization: the impact of organizational identification and gossip and power in the workplace. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25, 428–438. doi:
abusive supervision on followers’ perceived cohesion and tendency to gossip. 10.5465/amr.2000.3312928
J. Bus. Ethics 118, 623–634. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1612-z Lammers, J., and Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking.
Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at the office: spillover and crossover of J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97:279. doi: 10.1037/a0015437
coworker incivility. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 571–588. doi: 10.1002/job.774 Laschinger, H. K. S. (2012). Job and career satisfaction and turnover intentions of
Ferreira, A. V. A. (2014). Gossip as indirect mockery in friendly conversation: the newly graduated nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 20, 472–484. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.
social functions of ‘sharing a laugh’at third parties. Discour. Stud. 16, 607–628. 2011.01293.x
doi: 10.1177/1461445614538564 LasisiOlukayode, J., Okuneye, M. Y., and Shodiya, A. O. (2014). Antecedents of
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with counter work behavior in public sector organizations: evidence from nigeria.
unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Kuwait Chap. Arab. J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 3:58. doi: 10.12816/0018329
Res. 18, 382–388. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800313 Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., and Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes.
Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8:78. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 J. Appl. Psychol. 96:1258. doi: 10.1037/a0024442
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., and Liljenquist, K. A. Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., and Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not
(2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of
conformity, and dissonance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95:1450. doi: 10.1037/ and attributions for psychological contract breach. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 39–56.
a0012633 doi: 10.1002/job.126
Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am. Leymann, H., and Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development
Statist. Assoc. 70, 320–328. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865 of post-traumatic stress disorders. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 5, 251–275.
Ghosh, R. (2017). Workplace Incivility in Asia-How do We Take A Socio-Cultural doi: 10.1080/13594329608414858
Perspective?. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., and Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility:
Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R., and impact on work and health outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:95. doi: 10.1037/0021-
Kowalski, R. M. (2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects 9010.93.1.95
of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engagement, and performance in Lim, S., Ilies, R., Koopman, J., Christoforou, P., and Arvey, R. D. (2018).
an online context. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:297. doi: 10.1037/a0032851 Emotional mechanisms linking incivility at work to aggression and withdrawal
Griffin, B. (2010). Multilevel relationships between organizational-level incivility, at home: an experience-sampling study. J. Manag. 44, 2888–2908. doi: 10.1177/
justice and intention to stay. Work Stress 24, 309–323. doi: 10.1080/02678373. 0149206316654544
2010.531186 Lim, S., and Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility:
Grosser, T., Kidwell, V., and Labianca, G. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: does family support help? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 16:95. doi: 10.1037/
positive and negative workplace gossip. Organ. Dyn. 41, 52–61. a0021726
Hair, J. Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., and Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least Lim, V. K. G., and Teo, T. S. H. (2009). Mind your E-manners: impact of
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behavior. Inform. Manag. 46,
research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26, 106–121. doi: 10.1108/ebr-10-2013-0128 419–425. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006
Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer On Partial Loh, J. M. I., Thorsteinsson, E. B., and Loi, N. M. (2019). Workplace incivility
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: and work outcomes: cross-cultural comparison between Australian and
Sage Publications. Singaporean employees. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 1–25. doi: 10.1111/1744-
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. 7941.12233
J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19, 139–152. doi: 10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., and Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural measures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71:616. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in
Long Range Plan. 46, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001 IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past
Handoyo, S., Samian, D. S., and Suhariadi, F. (2018). The measurement of research. Manag. Sci. 52, 1865–1883. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597
workplace incivility in Indonesia: evidence and construct validity. Psychol. Res. Malhotra, N. K., Mukhopadhyay, S., Liu, X., and Dash, S. (2012). One, few or
Behav. Manag. 11:217. doi: 10.2147/prbm.s163509 many?: an integrated framework for identifying the items in measurement
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). “The use of partial scales. Int. J. Mark. Res. 54, 835–862. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-54-6-835-862
least squares path modeling in international marketing,” in New Challenges Marchiondo, L. A., Gonzales, E., and Williams, L. J. (2017). Trajectories of
to International Marketing, eds R. R. Sinkovics and P. N. Ghauri (Bingley: perceived workplace age discrimination and long-term associations with
Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 277–319. doi: 10.1108/s1474-7979(2009) mental, self-rated, and occupational health. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci.
0000020014 74, 655–663. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx095
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions?: a research- based Mela, C. F., and Kopalle, P. K. (2002). The impact of collinearity on regression
theory of cultural differences among nations. Intern. Stud. Manag. Organ. 13, analysis: the asymmetric effect of negative and positive correlations. Appl. Econ.
46–74. doi: 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358 34, 667–677. doi: 10.1080/00036840110058482
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., and Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in Sliter, M., Sliter, K., and Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: the effect
organizations: contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group Organ. Manag. of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales
35, 371–390. doi: 10.1177/1059601109360389 performance. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 121–139. doi: 10.1002/job.767
Miner-Rubino, K., and Reed, W. D. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational model Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions.
of workgroup incivility: the roles of organizational trust and group regard. J. R. Statist. Soc. 36, 111–147.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40, 3148–3168. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., and Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace
Mitchell, M. S., and Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace incivility to citizenship performance: the combined effects of affective
deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. commitment and conscientiousness. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 878–893. doi: 10.
Psychol. 92:1159. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 1002/job.773
Moon, C., Weick, M., and Uskul, A. K. (2018). Cultural variation in individuals’ Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43,
responses to incivility by perpetrators of different rank: the mediating role 178–190. doi: 10.2307/1556375
of descriptive and injunctive norms. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 472–489. doi: Terlicki, S. A. (2011). Exploring Individual And Organizational Level Antecedents
10.1002/ejsp.2344 Of Experienced Workplace Incivility. Master thesis, University of Tennessee at
Morrison, E. W., and Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: a Chattanooga, Chattanooga.
model of how psychological contract violation develops. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22, Tomprou, M., Nikolaou, I., and Vakola, M. (2012). Experiencing organizational
226–256. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9707180265 change in Greece: the framework of psychological contract. Intern. J. Hum.
Ng, T. W. H., and Feldman, D. C. (2013). Age and innovation-related behavior: the Resour. Manag. 23, 385–405. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.561223
joint moderating effects of supervisor undermining and proactive personality. Totterdell, P., Hershcovis, M. S., Niven, K., Reich, T. C., and Stride, C. (2012).
J. Organ. Behav. 34, 583–606. doi: 10.1002/job.1802 Can employees be emotionally drained by witnessing unpleasant interactions
Olekalns, M., Horan, C. J., and Smith, P. L. (2014). Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s between coworkers? A diary study of induced emotion regulation. Work Stress
wrong: structural and social determinants of deception in negotiation. J. Bus. 26, 112–129. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.681153
Ethics 122, 89–102. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1754-7 Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., and Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of Partial
Papa, A., Dezi, L., Gregori, G. L., Mueller, J., and Miglietta, N. (2018). Improving Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer.
innovation performance through knowledge acquisition: the moderating role Viotti, S., Converso, D., Hamblin, L. E., Guidetti, G., and Arnetz, J. E. (2018).
of employee retention and human resource management practices. J. Knowl. Organisational efficiency and co-worker incivility: a cross-national study of
Manag. 24, 589–605. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2017-0391 nurses in the USA and Italy. J. Nurs. Manag. 26, 597–604. doi: 10.1111/jonm.
Parzefall, M. R., and Hakanen, J. (2010). Psychological contract and its motivational 12587
and health-enhancing properties. J. Manag. Psychol. 25, 4–21. doi: 10.1108/ Weiss, H. M., and Cropanzano, R. (1996). “Affective events theory: a theoretical
02683941011013849 discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at
Pate, J., Martin, G., and McGoldrick, J. (2003). The impact of psychological contract work,” in Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series Of Analytical
violation on employee attitudes and behaviour. Employ. Relat. 25, 557–573. Essays And Critical Reviews, eds B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Amsterdam:
doi: 10.1108/01425450310501306 Elsevier), 1–74.
Pate, J., Martin, G., and Staines, H. (2000). Exploring the relationship between Williams, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
psychological contracts and organizational change: a process model and case commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
study evidence. Strateg. Chang. 9, 481–493. doi: 10.1002/1099-1697(200012)9: J. Manag. 17, 601–617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305
8<481::aid-jsc513>3.0.co;2-g Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., and Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and
Penney, L. M., and Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and work behaviors: the mediating role of LMX. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 531–543.
counterproductive work behavior (CWB): the moderating role of negative doi: 10.1002/job.768
affectivity. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 777–796. doi: 10.1002/job.336 Yang, C., Minjock, R., Voss, B. E., and Colarelli, S. M. (2014). Gossip in
Porath, C., and Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91, organizations: from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Acad. Manag.
114–121. Annu. Meet. Proc. 2014, 12484–12484.
Porath, C. L., Overbeck, J. R., and Pearson, C. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: Yasin, T., and Khalid, S. (2015). Organizational cynicism, work related quality of life
how individuals respond to status challenges. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 1945– and organizational commitment in employees. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 9:568.
1980. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00375.x Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., and Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 1068–
SmartPLS GmbH. Available online at: http://www.smartpls.com 1076. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068
Robinson, S. L., and Wolfe Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological
contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 21, 525– Conflict of Interest: SG was employed by the company Multan Electric Power
546. doi: 10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::aid-job40>3.0.co;2-t Company (MEPCO).
Rosnow, R. L., and Georgoudi, M. (1985). Killed by Idle Gossip: The Psychology Of
Small Talk. When Information Counts. Lexington MA: Lexington Books. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of
Rousseau, D. M., and Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
issues, alternatives and measures. J. Organ. Behav. 19, 679–695. conflict of interest.
Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to
job attitudes and task design. Admin. Sci. Q. 23, 224–253. Copyright © 2020 Bashir, Shabbir, Saleem, Abrar, Saqib and Gill. This is an open-
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Behav. 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248 provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
Schilpzand, P., Pater, I. E. D. E., and Erez, A. (2014). Workplace incivility?: original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
a review of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Organ. Behav. practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
37:1976. with these terms.