Vol. 14(4), pp.

110-122, April, 2020

DOI: 10.5897/AJBM2016.8121
Article Number: 000637963499
ISSN: 1993-8233
Copyright© 2020
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article African Journal of Business Management
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Full Length Research Paper

The effect of workplace incivility on organizational

outcome (mediating role of psychological capital)
Xu Shi Guo1 and Shalendra Satish Kumar2*
1
Department of International Business, School of Business Administration, Chungnam National University, Korea.
2
Department of Business Administration, Chungnam National University, Korea.
Received 16 August 2016; Accepted 18 October, 2016

The major purpose of this study was to assess the impact of workplace incivility on organizational
outcomes as well as the mediating effect of psychological capital on this process particularly in
academic organization in Fiji. To accomplish this purpose, personal distribution of 250 questionnaires
was given to the teachers. The final response rate from employees was 90% (225/250). The result shows
that workplace incivility was found to be negatively significant to organizational commitment, job
involvement and job satisfaction. Secondly, there was a negative relationship between workplace
incivility and psychological capital. Thirdly, as predicted psychological capital was positively
significantly related to organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. Fourthly the
mediating role of psychological capital was identified to have significant relationship between
workplace incivility and organizational outcome. Finally practical recommendation was suggested for
the employees of Ministry of Education, Fiji.

Key words: Workplace incivility, psychological capital, organizational commitment, job involvement and job
satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION

Workplace incivility is constantly increasing with the becomes interesting to explore the evolution of workplace
challenging characteristic of the contemporary society. incivility and then examining its phenomena on the
Every year millions of employees fall victim of work place organizational commitments, job commitments and job
incivility. According to Person and Porath (2005), it is an satisfaction. Secondly, examining the mediating effect of
alarming to detect that workplace incivility dominates in Psychological Capital between workplace incivility and
many organization oscillating from government agencies, the organizational outcomes. The current study
medical organizations, National sports organization to demarcates from preceding research work and adding
academic and many other non-profit and profit new contribution of information to an already existing
organization. Workplace Incivility has been labeled as knowledge. Workplace incivility is defined in accordance
“organizational chaos” where work is not well organized to Anderson and Pearson‟s (1999) definition: “workplace
or coordinated. The novelty of this study is twofold. Firstly incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous
workplace is seen as social process; therefore it intent to harm the target, in violations of workplace

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
 Xu and Kumar 111

norms for mutual respect”. He stated that barbaric verbal mistreat but rather it can also be nonverbal.
behaviors are usually discourteous rude, and displays Although incivility represents low intensity behavior, it
absence of regard for fellow coworkers. Low-intensity should not be contemplated as trivial or harmless. As a
refers to verbal phenomena rather than being physical. result of its low intensity, it is difficult to observe and
It is active and indirect forms of behavior (Pearson a n easily neglected; never the less, continuously ignoring
d Porath, 2005). Workplace incivility generally includes these tendencies will allows incivility in the organization
three parties: The instigator, the target and the to intensify into more relentless workplace violence. The
observer. These positions are not mutually exclusive; consequence of Workplace incivility has a pernicious
where one acts as the instigator, they could also be effect on both victims and organizations. Estes and
the target or observer in another situation (Anderson Wang (2008) in their research found out that at
and Pearson, 1999). This research brings lime light the individual level, victims usually undergo psychological
issues of what the academics in Fiji suffer silently, distress due to discourteous actions and words thus
bounded by the code of ethics of Ministry of Education experiencing anxiety, low self-esteem, depression,
which forbids them from disclosing their work publicly. insomnia, and stress. In Fiji some common issues that
The ever changing demands and constant pressures concerning the workplace are as follows: Not switching
from stakeholders are directly affecting the academics off mobile phones while in meetings, leaving behind a
and its professions. The pleasure of producing an jammed photocopier or printer after use (Johnson and
outstanding learner is dampened and destroyed by Indvik, 2001), sending an awful and belittling note,
creation of workplace incivility, unrealistic goals and making accusations or undermining coworker‟s
demand on teachers and the excitement of assisting in credibility in front of others, shouting, talking loudly on
young mind to flourish with enriching knowledge is the phone about personal matters during working
being discouraged and depressed by rising tensions, hours, answering the phone in casual way, responding to
stultifying work environment and unrealistic work coworkers in somewhat too casual way, not sharing
demands on the academics. The aim of this research relevant information (Hutton, 2006), gossiping about
is to analyse the relationship that exist between workmates to capture other‟s attention (Johnson and
incivility and the organisational outcome among Indvik, 2001), not brewing coffee for a next pot,
academics in Fiji. By exploring these issues, we hope to standing unsolicited but irritably over the desk of
contribute to the current study and its confounding someone engaging in a telephone conversation,
relationship between incivility and organisational throwing trashes carelessly, are other examples of
outcome and on the same note suggesting a interpersonal uncivil behaviors (Martin, 1996). Using
psychological capital as a method that can mediate the others‟ stationeries without permission and excluding
relationship between them. coworkers from staff-based social activities are also
included as precedent of operationalized workplace
incivility (Hutton, 2006). For organization, this type of
REVIEW OF LITERATURE working culture or situation is catastrophic and
detrimental (Hallowell, 1999). According to Andersson
Workplace incivility a n d Pearson (1999), workplace incivility takes four
forms and they are:
Recently workplace incivility has been seen as a
burgeoning concern and a universal phenomenon which 1. Exclusionary behavior: Exclusionary range from minor
organisations should initiate its focus towards. exclusionary tactics such as curt responses to more
Workplace incivility is a behaviour that exists in the serious instances, with the most serious form of
organisation that violates the organisational norm which ostracism behavior is defined as: Individual‟s action that
threatens the well-being of the organisation and its leaves out other coworkers in the organization on high
employees. Workplace incivility is recently a very new degree of divergent.
notion of antisocial behavior that has been perceived 2. Gossiping: A spreading of false or negative
in various disciplines such as education, nursing and information about coworkers to another person or group
management sectors. It is characterized as disrespect, in regards to their personal, private and confidential
thoughtlessness, rudeness and therefore workplace information. The term is frequently used with negative
incivility is defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with connotations, referring to spreading of malicious
ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of information, unreliably sourced and unchecked
workplace norms for mutual respect (Anderson a n d anecdotes and misinformation. The other negative
Pearson, 1999). It was further defined as low in intensity views of gossip are its being trivial, invasive, and
compared to other disparate forms of divergent commonly harmful.
behaviors such as workplace violence and workplace 3. Hostility: Hostility is a behavior that seeks to perpetrate
aggression (Neuman a n d Baron, 1998), tyranny harm which is not physical in nature. The most common
(Ashforth, 1994), workplace bullying and harassment ones that have been observed in the organizations are
(Rospenda, 2002). Incivility is not only restricted to generally rude, discourteous and display lack of regards
112 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Figure 1. Spiral theory of incivility model (Andersson and Pearson, 1999) depicting Tit for Tat method.

for others. Hostility is a type of nonphysical incivility that insult, loss of face and this could bring about deliberate
seeks to inflict anger, hatred, or harm. intense behaviors such as disorder or aggression within
4. Privacy invasion: Privacy Invasion is “invading into the the organization. The spiral of incivility becomes
personal life of another coworker, without just cause” It is contagious and this could progress until justice is
further defined as the "intrusion into the personal life of restored, forgiveness is asked pardon is given, or one
another, without just cause". of the involved parties resigns. On the other hand Bau
(1964), he used social exchange theory t o describe
According to Andersson and Pearson‟s (1999) spiral how incivility is perceived and generated. He s t a t e d
theory of incivility (Figure 1) begins at the outset when that social exchange theory is a social psychological
an uncivil act is recognized and anticipated. Employee perspective that describes social change as a
recognizes this as uncivil because it breaches the norms mechanism of reciprocates between coworkers. When
or is generally an unacceptable behavior. The victim two individuals generate reciprocal activities from each
either f a s c i n a t e d for retaliation stirred by negative other through a series of mutual exchanges therefore in
affect decides to leave the organization and this could the process developing a social exchange relationship.
eventuate at any point along the spiral. The fascination Furthermore it has been found that social exchange and
for retaliations likely to result in unacceptable behavior reciprocal aggression theories support the i m p o r t a n c e
in reaction to the incivility perceived. As the spiral of studying incivility. Furthermore Robinson and
advances further, employees are likely to reach a O‟Learry-Kelly adopted the concept of social learning
breaking point due to dissatisfaction such as anger, theory to explain the development of antisocial behavior
 Xu and Kumar 113

in the workplace. This was further supported by Bandura responsibility.

(1977) that social learning theory proposes that
individual behavior is influenced by role models for
behavior. New members of an organization learn the Workplace incivility and the organizational outcomes
values and assumptions of the organization through
observing other members. Organizational outcome comprised of organizational
commitments, job satisfaction and job involvement. For
the above research, workplace incivility is c o r r e l at e d
Psychological capital with organizational outcome. Experiencing incivility in the
workplace has been found to be related to a number of
affective, attitudinal, cognitive and behavioural
Psychological capital is formalized as employee’s outcomes. Attitudinal and cognitive outcomes include
positive state of psychological development and this is decreased organizational commitment and motivation
described through: (1) Self-efficacy, having courage in (Lim and Teo, 2009) and lower levels of perceived
putting the decisive effort to accomplish a demanding fairness (Lim and Lee, 2011) respectively. Workplace
tasks; (2) Hope, enduring towards a goals and, if incivility displayed a negative statistically and practically
necessary, altering paths of goals in order to significant relationship with the response to
accomplish; and (3) Optimism, making a decisive organizational outcomes consisting of organizational
attribution through current progress and in the future; (4) commitment, job involvement, and Job satisfaction. This
Resiliency, when surrounded by complications and was further supported by Lim and Cortina (2005) and
difficulties, withstanding it and bouncing back and even Penney and Spector (2005) that workplace Incivility itself
beyond to achieve the ultimate. PsyCap is concerned will reduce productivity, job commitments and job
with „who you are‟ and „what you are becoming in satisfaction. This study will empirically investigate the
developmental sense (Luthans and Luthans, 2004). The hypothesis that is described as follows:
sub dimensions of psychological capita are:
Hypothesis 1: The workplace incivility is negatively
1. Self-efficacy: PsyCap efficacy or simply confidence related to the organizational outcomes
can be defined as ones determination about his or
her capabilities to activate motivation, cognitive
Workplace incivility and the organizational
resources and line of action needed to successfully
commitments
perform a specific task within a given context. Self-
efficacy employees are distinguished by 5 vital Organizational commitment is an attitudinal variable
characteristics. (a) Selecting high goals and self- that signifies a level of affection an employee‟s has
selecting complicated task; (b) Welcomes and succeed toward the organization. Research supports the
on challenges; (c) High self-motivation; (d) Devote existence of three types of Organizational Commitment
necessary effort to achieve their goals; (e) Facing (OC), Affective Commitment (AC), Normative
hindrance, they still continue. Commitment (NC) and Continuance Commitment (CC).
2. Hope: Frequently used in everyday language, Snyder Affective refers to an incumbent‟s emotional affection
and Anderson (1991) described hope positive towards the organization. In other words, individual’s
motivational as a state of interactively derivate sense expectations are met and their wishes to be part of the
of success in terms of (1) goal-directed energy; (2) organization; whereas normative commitment is based
planning to meet goals. In other words, hopeful on the individual’s values (it is where individual assumes
employees not only have the motivation and the that he /she has to stay because it is the ultimate thing
willpower to succeed, but also inherit an uncanny to do). On the other hand, continuance commitment
capacity for generating multiple ways to pursue their directly relates an employee’s perceived benefits of
goals (Sneyder, 2000). doing something. Social identification is an employee’s
3. Optimism: Optimism is when an employee is affection towards the social group and the aspiration to
adamant of desirable outcomes in the future. It is not continue being a member in that particular group.
about forecasting that favorable things will transpire in According to Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian
the future. An optimistic person is likely to adapt to (1974), commitment is “acceptance of goals and
change, see opportunity that arise in future and creating values of an organization, willingness to apply ample
all possible opportunities to capitalize. effort on behalf of the organization, and a positive
4. Resilience: Failure after failure does not deter a leader aspiration to maintain organizational membership.”
from seeking out achieving the mission they set forth for According to Meyer (1993), “workers with a tenacious
themselves in their organization or even entire societies. affective commitment endure with the organization and
According to Luthans (2002) he describes resilience as want to have a strong continuance commitment with
an ability to rebound or bounce back from catastrophe, organization. Employees that had a good relationship
conflict, deficiencies which therefore increase with their work unit had higher levels of organizational
114 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

commitment. According to Jaros (1995) stated that Workplace incivility and the job involvement
affective commitment is the extremely vital out of three
components of organizational commitment in anticipating Job involvement is defined as a degree to which a
organizational commitments. Affective commitment is worker is involved in this given task and freedom in
positively correlated with work attitudes (Allen and making decision. According to Bass (1965), employee’s
Meyer, 1996) and having greater organizational job involvement increases if they have some authority in
commitments (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Incivility decision making process, and have greater
indirectly stimulates organizational commitments through responsibilities, this will boost the tempo of the work.
effect on perceptions and fairness also distrust has Marcson (1960) and Kornhauser (1962) suggested that
been identified as the result of abuse and a n t e c e d e n t suitable method to escalate an output of workers in
of organizational commitments (Taylor, 2010). This organizations is to bestow the workers with jobs that
basis of above mentioned literature, presents study demand more involvement. An employee with a high
proposal that: level of job involvement will always consider job as a
personal interests and vital component of their life. The
Hypothesis 1-1: Workplace incivility is negatively related well-known phrase „I live, eat, and breathe my job‟
to organizational commitment would describe someone whose has a very high job
involvement. According to (Kanungo, 1982) Job
involvement is a distinct concept that contradicts from
Workplace incivility and job satisfaction the concept of work ethic in the sense that it is one’s
belief that work is vital, and employees should involve in
Job satisfaction is achieved when an employee feels work to better themselves. He further elaborated that Job
comfortable within the organisation. Hence the talents involvement is also a distinct concept from organizational
and knowledge that an employee has can be utilised and commitment and job satisfaction. Job involvement is how
get him/her promoted. According to better job analysis relevance is employee’s job to his or her life, and job
and job design, the recruitment process, training and satisfaction is the level of satisfaction a worker
development are vital and top priority in motivating achieves from his or her work. However, em plo ye es
employee performance and job satisfaction. Herzberg may be subject to hostile working environment and they
Two-factor theory accentuates on the motivator-hygiene begin to feel stressful and exhausted. In this respect,
factors which elaborates on job satisfaction and employees reflect frustration, learning disabilities, and
motivation in the organization. The theory c o n v i n c e s develop lower job involvement. Many research has
that some component of job satisfaction enhances the revealed that when an employee’s experience workplace
motivation while some component causes job incivility, there psychological condition such as stress,
dissatisfaction. According Herzberg different factors lead anxiety and depression experienced by individuals can
to job satisfaction or to job dissatisfaction. damage the organizations through performance and
This theory further signifies different factors of reducing productivity and job involvement (Baba,
motivation and hygiene that results in job satisfaction 1998). This basis of above mentioned literature,
and dissatisfaction outcomes. Motivation drives presents study proposal that:
e m p l o ye e s to realize one’s personal and
organizational goals. According to Spector (1997), job Hypothesis 1-3: Workplace incivility is negatively related
satisfaction is an employee’s affective response to to job involvement.
how they feel about their work and its diverse
aspects. Even though these definitions differ somewhat
in content, many agree that job satisfaction is an Workplace incivility and the psychological capital
affective reaction to individual’s work as a whole or to
particular facets of the work. Workplace incivility, as Work place incivility has been a major topic in
modern discrimination, may directly experience has a organizational research over the past 20 years and is
negative effects relate to their job satisfaction. defined as negative treatment that is systematic,
Specifically, workplace incivility, will negatively affect a continuing over a period of time and perceived as
target’s ability to cope through the use of resources such directed towards one or more people who have difficulty
as social support or general enjoyment with their job, defending themselves against it. The development of
eventually resulting in dissatisfaction with their work in psychological capital has contributed to a focus on
general. Workplace incivility is causing strain in targets, positives rather than negatives. It is a focus on
and therefore resource depletion, they will likely resources rather than deficits. However there has been
experience decreased job satisfaction. This basis of no research on the relationship between PsyCap and
above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that: workplace incivility. Incivility at work has g e n e r a l l y
been researched in terms of its negative impact, which
Hypothesis 1-2: Workplace incivility is negatively related provides us with a literature balanced in favour of what
to job satisfaction does not work as opposed to what does work.
 Xu and Kumar 115

Figure 2. Hypothesized model.

The emergence of psychological capital has brought to job satisfaction.

with it a revised focus based on the premise that perhaps
we can learn more about fixing what is broken, by
studying what is not broken. This basis of above Mediating role of psychological capital
mentioned literature, presents study proposal that:
Self-efficacy is instrument develop through mastery
Hypothesis 2: Workplace incivility is negatively related to experience, modeling and vicarious learning, social
psychological capital. persuasion and developing physiological and
psychological arousal. Hope plays a vital role in
developing goal setting participation and contingency
Psychological capital and organisational outcome planning for alternative pathways to achieve goal.
Optimism is developed through compassion from the past,
Psychological capital is positively related to organizational acknowledging the present and opportunity for
commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement. High investigating in the future. The final component of
psychological capital in people is believed to own PsyCap, resilience is instrumental in developing through
cognitive capabilities of self- regulation those offers the asset focused strategy such as enhancing employability,
opening, self-discipline and energy essential to reach risk focused strategy such as proactive avoidance of
ones goal. Self-efficacy is considered to meet the illusion adversity and process focused strategy to influence the
standard for psychological capital in positive interpretation of adverse events. It is understood that
organisational outcomes (organisational commitment, job psychological capital as a multidimensional constructs
satisfaction and job involvement). High psychological which address job commitment and improves job
capital persons have ideas to put intentional efforts to satisfaction. Research has established a positive
produce original and creative ways in achieving goals. relationship between resiliency and workplace
Organisational change in a positive sense, psychological performance (Avolio and Luthans, 2006).When an
capital is considered as person level high order employee apprehends the organizational activities in the
component that facilitates change (Abbas and Raja, process of incivility driven, psychological capital is helping
2016). A person was shown positive job involvement and to reduce the salience of resource loss related to
organisational commitments at the time of organisational activities, to cope with stressors and thereby reducing
change (Abbas and Raja, 2015). Psychological capital effect of workplace incivility and increasing the strength of
gives persons more confidence and excites the positive organizational commitments. This basis of above
thinking, which should result in high organisational mentioned literature, presents study proposal that (Figure
commitments, job involvements and job satisfaction. This 2):
basis of above mentioned literature, presents study Hypothesis 4: Psychological capital mediates the
proposal that: relationship between workplace incivility and
organizational outcomes.
Hypothesis 3: Psychological capital is positively related to Hypothesis 4-1: Psychological capital mediates the
organizational Outcomes. relationship between workplace incivility and
Hypothesis 3-1: Psychological capital is positively related organizational commitment.
to organizational commitments. Hypothesis 4-2: Psychological capital mediates the
Hypothesis 3-2: Psychological capital is positively related relationship between workplace incivility and job
to employee’s job involvement. satisfaction
Hypothesis 3-3: Psychological capital is positively related Hypothesis 4-3: Psychological capital mediates the
116 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

relationship between workplace incivility and job Affective Commitment questionnaire developed by Meyer and
involvement. Allen (1993). Rating was completed on a 6- point Likert - type
scale, with responses ranging from (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 =
Strongly Agree). Sample item included: “I would be very happy
to spend the rest of my career with this organisation and this
METHODOLOGY organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. These
items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of
Data collection
0.73
Random sampling technique was used and samples were
collected from schools around Viti Levu (Fiji) so that maximum
Job involvement
results were obtained. The targeted sample for this research
work were the teachers employed by Ministry of Education (Fiji),
Job Involvement was measured using 10 items job involvement
having sample of 250 teachers, a quantitative research method
questionnaire develop by Kanungo (1982). Rating was completed
was used to collect relevant data‟s. The final sample for the
on a 6-point Likert - type scale, with responses ranging from (1
study consisted of 225 employees of Ministry of Education, Fiji.
= strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Sample item included:
The survey was conducted in English with a covering letter that
“The most important things that happen to me involve my present
explained the purpose and importance of the study. Questionnaire
job and I like to be absorbed in my job most of the time”. These
was personally distributed to respondent during December and
items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of
January this year, 2016. Questionnaire was also given to school
0.80.
heads that helped in facilitation. Mobile calls were made to
remind the participants who did not responded. Following these
procedure 250 questionnaires was distributed and the final
Job satisfaction
response rate received w a s 90% (225/250). Descriptive
demographic data for the entire sample are displayed in Table 2.
Job satisfaction was measured using 5 item Job Satisfaction
The sample consist of 48% male (n = 108) and 52% female (n =
questionnaire develop by Muijs (2004). Rating was completed on
117). The most common age of the employees were distributed
a 6-point Likert - type scale, with responses ranging from (1 =
between the range from 31 to 35, specifically from 31 to 35 years
strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Sample item included:
old (n = 79, 35.1%) and from 26 to 25 years old (n = 43, 19.1%).
“Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job and most
people on this job are very satisfied with the job”. These items
were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.98
Measure

In this study, Workplace Incivility is known as independent

Control variable
variable and there were three dependent variables which were
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction (JS) and Job
Demographic variables (Age, gender occupational experience and
Involvement (JI). Psychological Capital as m e d i a t o r
class roll) were included as control variable because of their
b e t w e e n independent variable and dependent variables.
possible effects on mediator and organizational outcome.

Workplace incivility
RESULTS
Workplace incivility was measured using 20 items (4 items for
Hostility, 5 items for Privacy Invasion, 7 items for Exclusionary Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Behaviour and 4 items for Gossiping) developed by Martin and
Hine (2005). Rating was completed on a 5-point Likert – type Table 1 includes means, standard deviations, alpha
scale, with responses ranging from (1 = Never, 5 = Very Often).
Sample item included: “Used an inappropriate tone when
coefficients, and correlations among all variables. It
speaking to you and Gossiped behind your back”. These items show that workplace incivility has significant negative
were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.99 correlations with psychological capital (r = -0.89, P <
0.01), organizational commitment (r = -0.64, p < 0.01),
job involvement (r = -0.90, P < 0.01), job satisfaction(r = -
Psychological capital 0.99, P < 0.01).
Psychological capital was measured using 12 items on
Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans,
Youssef (2007). Rating was completed on a 6- point Likert type Validity
scale, with r e s p o n s e s r a n g i n g f r o m (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Sample item included: “I feel Following common practice (Tsui et al., 1997), we
confident in representing my work area in meeting with applied a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 55
management and I always look on the bright side of the things items that measure the five constructs in this study. As
regarding my job”. These items were averaged to form a scale,
revealed in Table 3, the results confirmed a five-factor
which had a reliability of 0.98
structure with an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (CFI) of
0.95 and root mean square error of approximation
Organizational commitment (RMSEA) of 0.05. If the values of GFI, CFI, and NFI
exceed the cut-off value of 0.9, and the value of RMSEA
Organizational commitment was measured using 8 items on is below the cut-off value of 0.08, then the model is said
 Xu and Kumar 117

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Age 1
Gender -0.07 1
Occupational experience 0.85** -0.20** 1
Class roll 0.16** 0.05 0.11 1
Workplace incivility 4.26 0.55 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 1
Psychological capital 1.74 0.54 -0.01 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.89** 1
Organisational outcome 1.60 0.40 -0.02 0.74** -0.14 0.02 -0.64** 0.62** 1
Job involvement 1.72 0.39 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.02 -0.90** 0.82** 0.62** 1
Job satisfaction 1.72 0.60 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.04 -0.99** 0.90** 0.65** 0.89** 1
**P<0.05; **P<0.01.

Table 2. Validity of measurement model.

2
Χ df RMSEA CFI GFI NFI
350.22 230 0.05 0.95 0.89 0.92

Table 3. Multiple regressions.

Dependent variable
Organizational commitment Job involvement Job satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Age 0.12 0.49 0.74 -0.01 0.12 0.03
Gender 0.73 0.73 0.41 0.04 -0.01 -0.02
Occupational experience -0.09 -0.04 -0.06 0.01 -0.11 -0.04
Class roll -0.03 -0.01 0.02 0.05 -0.04 -0.01
Workplace incivility -0.63** -0.90** -0.99**
2
R 0.55 0.95 0.01 0.81 0.01 0.98
*P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

to be acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The potential Hypothesis testing

threat of common method bias was checked with
Harman‟s single-factor test via confirmatory factor The hypothesis 1 of the study postulated that a
analysis. This test is based on the assumption that negative relationship would exist between workplace
common method bias is a serious problem when a incivility and organizational outcomes. Table 3 showing
single latent factor will account f o r more than 50% of the results of multiple regression on the relationships
the total variance of the measures (Podsakoff et al., between work place incivility and organizational outcomes
2003). The results for the single-factor model were as indicates workplace incivility are negatively and
follows: χ2 = 2674.32; df = 1344; GFI = 0.64; AGFI = significantly related to affective commitment (β = -0.63,
0.61; NFI = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.083. The chi-square P < 0.001), job involvement (β = -0.90, P < 0.001) job
test demonstrated that the five-factor model was satisfaction (β = -0.99, P < 0.001) respectively. Thus
superior to the single-factor model (350.22 vs hypothesis 1(1, 2 and 3) can be supported.
2674.32). Consequently, the results were worse than Hypothesis 2 proposes that workplace incivility is
that of a five-factor model and one single-factor model negatively related to psychological capital. It is conformed
did not account for the majority of the variance. In in Table 4 showing that workplace incivility has a negative
short, common method bias was not a critical threat in relationship with psychological capital (β = -0.89, P <
this study. 0,001). Thus hypothesis 2 is supported.
118 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 4. Regression results for Hypothesis 3, 4, and 5.

Dependent variable
Psychological capital Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Job involvement
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Age 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.01
Gender 0.02 0.01 0.72 0.73 -0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.04
Occupational experience -0.05 -0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.06 0.02
Class roll -0.09 -0.05 0.02 0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.09 0.06
Workplace incivility -0.90** -0.50** -0.60** -0.61**
Psychological capital 0.60** 0.14** 0.90** 0.10** 0.83** 0.11**
2
R 0.01 0.08 0.55 0.95 0.98 0.68 0.81
*P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P<0.001

Hypothesis 3 predicts that psychological capital is zero. Thus hypothesis is partially supported.
positively related to the organizational outcomes To solidify the testing results we employee another
(organizational commitment, job involvement, job more statistically rigorous method, Sobel test (1982), by
satisfaction). As shown in Table 4, psychological capital which mediation hypothesis may be assessed. It
has a positive relationship with organizational provides a more direct test of an indirect effect. In the
commitment (β = 0.60, P < 0.001), job involvement (β = case of simple mediation, the Sobel test is conducted by
0.83, P < 0.001), job satisfaction (β = 0.91, P < 0.001), comparing the strength of the indirect effect of
respectively. Thus Hypothesis 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 is supported, independent variable(X) on dependent variable(Y) to the
which means hypothesis 3 is fully supported, point null hypothesis that it equals zero. Result from the
conclusively. Sobel tests indicates that the indirect effects of
Hypothesis 4 proposes that psychological capital workplace incivility on OC (z = -3.722, P < 0.01) is in the
mediates the relationships between workplace incivility anticipated directions and are statistically significant.
and organizational outcomes. To test the mediating role Thus hypothesis 4-1 was supported.
of psychological capital, three steps regression approach The reduced effect of workplace incivility on job
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was involvement from -0.90 (P < 0.01) to -0.61 (P< 0.01)
followed. According to them, the three following confirms hypothesis 4-2. Partial mediation holds in this
regression equations should be estimated to test case, too. Result from the Sobel tests also indicates the
mediation. First, regressing the mediator on the mediating role of psychological capital in the relationship
independent variable; second, regressing the dependent between workplace incivility and job involvement. The
variable on the independent variable; and third, indirect effects (z = -2.71, P < 0.01) are statistically
regressing the dependent variable on both independent significant. Thus hypothesis 4-2 was supported.
variable and on the mediator. To establish mediation, the Hypothesis 4-3, proposing that psychological capital
following conditions must hold. First, the independent mediates a role in the relationship between workplace
variable m ust affect the m ediator in the first incivility and job satisfaction, is confirmed in Tables 3 and
e q u a t i o n . Second i n d e p e n d e n t variable m u s t 4. It can be identified in the table that three conditions for
b e shown to affect the dependent variable in the mediation are met and the effect of workplace incivility
second equation. Third, the mediator m us t a f f e c t on job satisfaction is reduced from -0.99 (P < 0.01) in
d e p e n d e n t variable in the third equation. If these the Equation 2 to -0.61(P < 0.01) in the Equation 3.
conditions all hold in the predicted direction, then the The results show that hypothesis 4-3 is partially
effect of independent variable on dependent variable supported. The results of Sobel test additionally
must be less in the third equation than in the second, implemented reinforce the mediation role of
perfect mediation holds if the independent variable psychological capital. It indicates that
has no e f f e c t when the mediator is c o ntr o ll ed . the indirect effects of workplace incivility on job
Partial m e d i a t i o n holds i n the case that the effect is satisfaction (z = -2.647, P < 0.01) is in the anticipated
significantly reduced in the third. Hypothesis 3 a n d 4 directions and is statistically significant. Thus hypothesis
show that required three 4-1 predicts that psychological 4-3 is supported too.
capital mediates the relationship between workplace As a supplement to the Baron and Kenny‟s (1986)
incivility and organizational commitment. Tables approach, the bootstrapping method was also employed
conditions are met. The effects of workplace incivility for testing the effects of intervening variables (Williams
(independent variable) on dependent variable is and Mackinnon, 2008). Bootstrapping generates an
significantly reduced t o - 0.50, though it does not reach empirical representation of the sampling distribution of
 Xu and Kumar 119

Table 5. Bootstrapping results of indirect effect for dependable variable.

Coefficient SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

Organizational commitment 0.17** 0.08 0.28 0.44
Job involvement 0.11** 0.04 0.18 0.26
Job satisfaction 0.18** 0.03 0.11 0.22
*P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

the indirect effect by treating the obtained sample of size (0.113, 0.217) excludes zero, thus supporting
n as a representation of the population in miniature, one hypothesis 4-3, that the indirect effect of workplace
that is repeatedly resample during analysis as a means incivility on job satisfaction through the mediator
of mimicking the original sampling process (Hayes, psychological capital, is statistically significant at the
2009). Hypotheses 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 was examined 0.05 level B = 0.177 (P < 0.01). The percentile 95%
using Amos 23 (Arbuckle 2009), which is currently the confidence interval also does not include zero, which
only available software package that directly produces further supports hypothesis 4-3.
bootstrapped percentile and bias-corrected confidence
intervals for indirect effects, was used to perform the
bootstrap analysis. To begin with, the software drew a DISCUSSION
three variable path diagram, with error terms for the
endogenous mediator and the dependent variable. Workplace incivility displayed a negative statistically
Then, 2,000 bootstrap samples were set by changing and practically significant relationship with the response
the bootstrap option because (the default value in to organizational commitment, job involvement, and job
Amos 23 is 200). satisfaction (P ≤ 0.01) (high effect). Further, the sub
Moreover, it was necessary to override the confidence dimensions of workplace incivility such as hostility,
intervals in both the bias-corrected and the percentile privacy invasion, Exclusionary behavior and gossiping
options (the original is set to 90%) because this study subscale displayed a negative practically and
needed to test a 95% confidence interval. By clicking the statistically significant relationship with organizational
„calculate estimate‟ button, Amos 23 can provide the commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction (P ≤
estimated coefficient a, b, c and c‟ and their 0.01) (high effect), indicating that individuals low on
corresponding standard errors, as well as the job involvement may display greater incivility within
confidence intervals in the output file. The following the workplace. In a d d i t i o n , t h e f i n d i n g s a l s o
section will discuss the results of testing hypotheses 4- 1, indicated that psychological capital was statistically
4-2 and 4-3 respectively using the mediation effect and negatively correlated with workplace incivility (P ≤ 0.01),
bootstrap methods. indicating that individuals possessing high levels of
In hypothesis 4-1, the bias-corrected 95% confidence PsyCap may be less likely to display incivility within the
interval is shown in Table 5. This assumed more workplace. On the other hand psychological capital
accurate confidence interval (0.277, 0.444) excludes shows that the higher the employees' psychological
zero, thus supporting hypothesis 4a, that the indirect capital, the higher their employee’s commitment, job
effect of workplace incivility on organizational involvement and job satisfaction to the organization.
commitment through the mediator psychological capital, Research conducted by Roberts (2011) indicated that
is statistically significant at the 0.05 level B = 0.170 (P < employees displaying high levels of psychological
0.01). The percentile 95% confidence interval also does capital possess psychological resources that produce
not include zero, which further supports hypothesis 4-1. positive workplace behaviors; this could explain the
In hypothesis 4-2, the bias-corrected 95% confidence relationship between psychological capital and job
interval is shown in Table 5. This assumed more involvement, as individuals possessing high levels of
accurate confidence interval (0.178, 0.258) excludes self-efficacy, hope, optimism a n d res i l i enc e may
zero, thus supporting hypothesis 4-2, that the indirect possess greater psychological resources to draw upon
effect of workplace incivility on job involvement through in achieving positive workplace outcomes such as job
the mediator psychological capital, is statistically involvement.
significant at the 0.05 level B= 0.110 (P < 0.01). The Hope as one of the sub dimensions of psychological
percentile 95% confidence interval also does not include capital is a motivational state including one’s
zero, which further supports hypothesis 4-2. In hypothesis determination of precious objectives and belief of
4-3, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval is shown getting over the impediments to reach these objectives.
in Table 5. The results of our research showed t h a t e m p l o y e e s
This assumed more accurate confidence interval who are more hopeful and have high self-efficacy a may
120 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

be more satisfied and committed to their organizations number of useful results. In summation, the present
resulting in higher job satisfaction. Optimism is a study’s findings broaden the geographies of incivility
purpose oriented state when a desired result has high research by extending organizational behaviour literature
value. The results showed that employees who are on incivility to the Fijian context. Relevantly, the study
more optimistic also may be more satisfied with their provided insight into how employees, specifically
job and deeply royal to their organizations. Resilience professionals from a diverse Fijian context perceive
is a person’s psychological capacity to rebound or and react to uncivil workplace behaviours. In particular,
bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure. We this study provided evidence that being a target of
found that employees who are more resilient also may be workplace incivility leads to adverse effect on
more satisfied with their jobs. When reviewed the organizational commitments, job satisfaction and job
literature, Larson and Luthans (2006) found positive involvement
relationship between general psychological capital and
job satisfaction. Avey (2009) found strong and positive
relationships between psychological capital and Practical implications
employee commitment, job satisfaction and intentions to
stay with the organization. The obtained results of this It has been suggested that such complex workplace
study support all of these findings as hope, optimism environments give rise to uncivil behaviour because
and resilience was positively related to organizational employees are too caught up in their demanding job
commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. roles to be courteous to their co- workers (Pearson and
Employees with greater levels of psychological capital Porath, 2005). The implication that part of the workforce
are more likely to be dedicated to their assignments, to experiencing workplace incivility can be devastating to
have a strong sense of duty, and to respond resolutely an organization’s productivity as workplace incivility has
to adversity. The privacy invasion and exclusionary been found to be associated w i t h v a r i o u s
behavior subscale, in particular, displayed a strong organizational outcomes such as organizational
negative relationship with Response to Work and commitments, job involvement, job satisfaction etc.
organizational commitment. This indicates t h e nature Importantly, Andersson and Pearson (1999) make
of the uncivil acts perpetrated as an expression of reference to the “incivility spiral” (p. 458) which
one’s low level of job involvement and organizational suggests a circular pattern of uncivil behaviour , when
commitment. Such acts may include invading a one employee behaves uncivilly, the victim retaliates
coworker’s privacy by taking their things without seeking with uncivil behaviour, and bystanders model the
permission, reading e-mails addressed to them and not observed behaviours. This highlights that uncivil
consulting them in decisions they should be involved behaviour could quickly assimilate into an undesirable
in. This further indicates that individuals experiencing organizational culture. Consequently, preventing or
low levels of job involvement may engage in hostile reducing uncivil behaviour at work is important.
behaviour towards their co-workers through acts such Moreover, it is particularly important for organizations to
as delaying responding to their queries without reason, work towards reducing the occurrence of uncivil
gossiping about them and speaking to them harshly. behaviour because it is predominantly those high in
Psychological capital was statistically and practically PsyCap that are likely to leave the organization or
significantly correlated with the Expression of being Job perceived workplace incivility can adversely affect the
Involved subscale of job involvement (p ≤ 0.01) (high organizational outcome and deteriorate the working
effect). This indicates that individuals with high PsyCap environment. Thus it becomes a prerogative for the
are more likely to be personally involved with their organization to retain employees with high in PsyCap as
jobs, may consider the most important things that these employees greatly beneficial to the organization.
happen to them to be connected to their jobs and may In monitoring uncivil conduct and limiting its effects,
even feel depressed when they fail at something organizations should not rely only on avenues of redress
connected to their jobs. The PsyCap dimension of by taking action once reported incidences have come to
Optimism also displayed a positive relationship with light. Instead, a proactive approach to conducting
organizational commitment, Job Involvement and job interventions should be adopted as a preventative
satisfaction. This indicates that individuals who have strategy which would limit the onset of an uncivil work
positive expectations of the future tend to exhibit a environment which gives rise to negative individual and
greater degree of identification with their work and tend organizational outcomes. Additionally, organizations
to immerse themselves in t h e i r work, finding meaning should endeavor to foster a work environment and
and satisfaction in carrying out their tasks. climate where rude and discourteous behaviour is not
tolerated as this might signal to employees that the
organization is supportive of those who m ight
Conclusion experience incivility and as a result i n c r e a s e
employees‟ levels of psychological safety. According to
In spite of certain limitations, this research delivered a Leiter (2011), proposed a risk management model of
 Xu and Kumar 121

workplace civility where organizations attempt to reflect these individuals. Such an intervention, if implemented
that incivility at work enables a harmful environment and correctly within the workplace, would not only prove
that such an environment in social the workplace efficient by minimizing costs and the time required to
weakens an employee’s sense of psychological safety. implement the intervention, but would also ensure
In summation, by promoting civility at work, greater willingness among employees to participate in
organizations can improve organizational outcomes, the the intervention. Future research endeavors in this area
quality of workplace relationships and individual of study should consider controlling for the specific
wellness. limitations of the study mentioned above. This can be
achieved through providing desirable incentives for
individuals to willingly participate in the study, rather
Limitations of the study than relying on individual’s sense of duty towards the
organization to provide adequate incentive to
Firstly, participants‟ tendency to provide socially desirable participate. This may achieve a higher response rate
responses, especially on the uncivil workplace behavior and, possibly, more honest responses which would
scale which requires that they admit to perpetrating acts ensure more reliable findings. In spite of the various
of incivility, calls into question the accuracy of the limitations of the study, future research can further
findings. Socially desirable responding is a common examine the relationship between workplace incivility
problem especially when self-report questionnaires are psychological capital and the organizational outcomes.
used. Secondly, participants displayed a lack of interest
in completing the questionnaires as many frequently
chose the same response throughout certain CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
questionnaires or displayed a noticeable pattern in their
responses which suggested that they had not answered The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
the questionnaire honestly. Lastly, the use of a cross-
sectional research design in which data is collected at a
fixed point in time does not allow for the determining of REFERENCES
causal relationships among variables. While significant
Abbas M, Raja U (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative
relationships between variables were determined in the performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative
present study, causal relationships cannot be inferred Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration
from these findings. In order for causality to be 32(2):128-138.
determined, future research will have to adopt a Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1996). Affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity.
longitudinal research design by studying the same Journal of Vocational Behaviour 49:252-276.
phenomenon at different points in time. Andersson LM, Pearson CM (1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of
incivility in the workplace. Academic Management Review 24(3):452-
471.
Ashforth BE (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relation
Recommendations 47(7):755-778.
Avey BJ, Luthans F, Jensen SM (2009). Psychological capital: A
A positive relationship was found between psychological positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover.
capital organizational commitment, job satisfaction and Human Resource Management 48(5):677-693.
job involvement. This indicates that high levels of Baba VV, Jamal M, Tourigny L (1998). Work and mental health: A
decade in Canadian research. Canadian Psychology 38:94-107.
psychological capital are associated with high levels of Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
organizational outcomes, suggesting that organizations distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
should invest in training which is aimed at improving the and statistical considerations. Journal Perspective Social Psychology
psychological capital of employees in order to increase 51:1173-1182.
Bass BM (1965). Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
their level of organizational outcomes. The PsyCap Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109
subscale of self-efficacy, hope, Optimism and resilience Estes B, Wang J (2008). Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and
was determined to have very strong predictive value for organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review
organizational outcomes, this further confirms the 7(2):218-240.
Hayes AF (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
benefits of organizations investing in interventions aimed analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs
at improving the psychological capital of employees, but 76(4):408-420.
more importantly, improving their self- efficacy as way of Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
enhancing their organizational outcomes. Luthans et al. Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.
Structural Equation Modelling 6(1):1-55.
(2006) have demonstrated the utility of interventions Jaros (1995). An assessment of Meyer and Allen‟s (1991). Three-
aimed at improving psychological capital through an component model of organizational commitment and turnover
hour-long m ic ro-intervention conducted amongst a intentions. Academy of Management Proceedings 1:317-328.
sample of management students and managers from Johnson PR, Indvik J (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint.
Public Personnel Management 30(4):457-465.
several organizations, finding that the intervention was Kanungo RN (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.
successful in improving the psychological capital of Journal of Applied Psychology 67:341-349.
122 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Lim S, Cortina LM (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003).
The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology 90:483-496. the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Luthans F (2002). The need for and meaning of positive Psychology 88:879-903.
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23:695- Porter L, Steers R, Mowday R, Boulian P (1974). Organizational
706. commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
Luthans F, Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Norman S, Combs G. (2006). technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:603-609.
Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Rospenda KM (2002). Workplace harassment, services
Journal of Organizational Behaviour 27:387-393. utilization, and drinking outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health
Luthans K, Luthans B (2004). Positive psychological capital: Going Psychology 7(2):141-155.
beyond human and social capital. Bussiness Horizons 47(1):45-50. Snyder CR, Irving LM, Anderson JR (1991). Hope and health. In
Marcson S (1960). The scientist in American Industry. Harper, New Snyder CR, Fbrsyth DR (eds.), Handbook of social and clinical
York. psychology: The health perspective. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Meyer JP, Allen NJ (1991). A three – component conceptualization of Press. pp 285-305. Available at: http://dx.doi:10.1023/A:
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1005547730153
1:61-89. Spector P (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes
Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA (1993). Commitment to organizations and Consequences. California:
and occupations: Extension and test of a three- component Taylor SG (2010). Cold looks and hot tempers: individual-level effects of
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4):538-551. incivility in the workplace. PhD, thesis,
Mowday RT, Boulian PV (1974). Organizational commitment, job Bradley University.
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Tsui AS, Pearce JL, Porter LW, Tripoli AM (1997). Alternative
Applied Psychology 59(5):603-609. approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does
Neuman JH, Baron RA (1998). Workplace violence and workplace investment pay off? Academic Management Journal 40:1089-1121.
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, Williams J, MacKinnon DP (2008). Resampling and distribution of the
and preferred targets. Journal of Management 24:391-419. product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models.
Pearson C, Andersson L, Porath C (2005). On the nature, Structural Equation Modelling 15:23-51.
consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for
“nice”? Think again. Academic Management Review 19(1):7-18.
Pearson CM, Andersson LM, Porath CL (2005). Workplace incivility.
In Fox S, Spector PE (eds.), Counterproductive work behavior:
Investigations of actor and targets. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. pp. 177–200. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Penney LM, Spector PE (2005). Job stress, incivility, and
counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The mediating role of
negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 26:777-796.