Workplace incivility holds consequences for both individuals and organisations. Managers are becoming increasingly aware of this phenomenon. Currently, there is no workplace incivility scale validated for use within the South African context.
To investigate the reliability and validity of the adapted workplace incivility scale by Leiter and colleagues for use within South Africa.
As it is currently difficult to measure workplace incivility within the South African context because of the lack of a valid and reliable scale, it is necessary to validate such a scale.
A cross-sectional research approach was used for the study. Convenience sampling (
The results confirmed that the scale showed a three-factor structure as best-fitting with acceptable reliability coefficients. Furthermore, discriminant validity could be shown between workplace incivility and workplace bullying, that is, supporting that these two constructs are not the same phenomenon. In terms of relationships, colleague incivility did not significantly predict any of the outcome variables and instigated incivility only being a negative predictor of job satisfaction and a borderline statistically significant negative predictor of work engagement. However, supervisor incivility predicted all the outcomes negatively.
Based on the results, workplace incivility should be addressed because of the harmful effects it can have, not only on employees but also on organisations. It is therefore necessary for managers to create awareness of workplace incivility in order to ensure that it does not integrate within the organisational culture and affect individual and organisational performance.
The study contributes to the limited research available in South Africa regarding workplace incivility by providing a scale that is valid and reliable.
Deviant behaviour within the workplace has received increased attention in recent years (Lim, Cortina & Magley,
Workplace incivility and workplace bullying are both classified as deviant work behaviours. There is often confusion as to how workplace bullying differs from workplace incivility, especially as incivility can be mistaken for bullying (Branch,
Concerning the prevalence of workplace incivility, a study of 800 employees within the United States of America revealed that 10% of employees have witnessed or experienced uncivil work behaviours every working day, and 20% of these employees were the victims of uncivil behaviour with a frequency of one working day per week (Pearson & Porath,
Even though the intensity and frequency of workplace incivility is low, the consequences of workplace incivility are not. Some implications of workplace incivility for the individual may include experiences related to anxiety, depression and in severe instances even suicide ideation (Estes & Wang,
Currently, no validated measures exist within the South African context to measure workplace incivility and to study its impact on employees and organisations. Therefore, the current study aimed to address this gap with the validation of a workplace incivility scale (WIS), based on the work of Leiter and colleagues in Canada (Leiter, Laschinger, Day & Oore,
The original WIS was developed in the United States of America by Cortina
Summary of the differences between workplace incivility and workplace bullying.
Variable | Workplace incivility | Workplace bullying |
---|---|---|
Intent of perpetrator | Perceived as ambiguous | Aggressive or damaging/harmful |
Intensity | Low | High or severe |
Frequency | Low | High |
Power imbalance | Not a prerequisite | Prerequisite |
Persistence | Not a prerequisite | Prerequisite |
Response of victim | Instigated responses or escalation | Unable or unwilling |
Because of the established power imbalance.
As mentioned earlier, workplace incivility and workplace bullying are both classified as workplace deviance but remain different conceptual phenomena. Workplace bullying is directed towards other employees and includes some of the following systematic patterns of behaviours: blatant insults, humiliation and social isolation (Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith & Pereira,
Work engagement is described as the work-related state of mind characterised as being positive and rewarding (Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova,
According to research conducted by Beattie and Griffin (
Organisational commitment can be conceptualised as the degree to which the individual identifies with his or her organisation as well as the degree to which this employee is involved within this specific organisation (Steers,
Employees’ levels of commitment to the organisation are influenced by variables such as the experience of uncivil behaviour. This is because of uncivil behaviour being considered to be unfair, which causes employees to decrease their commitment to the organisation (Barling & Phillips,
Job satisfaction is the emotional response that an employee exhibits in terms of his or her job and situation (Ayeni & Popoola,
Intention to leave occurs when employees of the organisation consider terminating their employment with the specific organisation based on their own free will (Shim & Chang,
For the purpose of this study, a quantitative research approach was used, indicating that the variables of the study were measured in order to analyse and compare results. This study specifically followed a cross-sectional survey design (Du Plooy,
Employees within the banking industry were the target population for the study. The large organisation, which participated was selected based on their availability and willingness to participate. Additionally, the employees who participated in the study were also selected based on their willingness and availability. Thus, convenience sampling was used in the study (Teddie & Yu,
Characteristics of the participants (
Item | Category | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Female | 210 | 60.90 | |
Male | 120 | 34.80 | |
Missing values | 15 | 4.30 | |
Black | 151 | 43.80 | |
White | 93 | 27.00 | |
Mixed-race | 36 | 11.00 | |
Indian | 42 | 12.80 | |
Asian | 3 | 0.90 | |
Other | 2 | 0.60 | |
Missing values | 18 | 5.20 | |
Single | 87 | 25.20 | |
Married or living with a partner | 182 | 52.80 | |
Divorced or separated | 21 | 6.10 | |
Living with parents | 40 | 11.60 | |
Widowed | 1 | 0.30 | |
Missing values | 14 | 4.10 | |
Grade 12 | 104 | 30.10 | |
Degree (Graduate or Honours) | 107 | 31.00 | |
Postgraduate degree | 29 | 8.40 | |
Diploma | 86 | 24.90 | |
Missing values | 19 | 5.50 | |
Afrikaans | 71 | 20.60 | |
English | 119 | 34.50 | |
Sepedi | 25 | 7.20 | |
Sesotho | 19 | 5.50 | |
Setswana | 31 | 9.00 | |
siSwati | 3 | 0.90 | |
Tshivenda | 11 | 3.20 | |
isiNdebele | 0 | 0.00 | |
isiXhosa | 15 | 4.30 | |
isiZulu | 28 | 8.10 | |
isiTsonga | 6 | 1.70 | |
Other | 3 | 0.90 | |
Missing values | 14 | 4.10 | |
Less than 1 year | 33 | 9.60 | |
1–5 years | 163 | 47.20 | |
5–10 years | 72 | 20.90 | |
10–15 years | 27 | 7.80 | |
15–20 years | 17 | 4.90 | |
20–25 years | 9 | 2.60 | |
More than 25 years | 10 | 2.90 | |
Missing values | 14 | 4.10 |
The mean age of participants was 35.17 [standard deviation (SD) = 9.79]. The sample consisted of 60.90% female participants and 34.80% male participants. In terms of ethnicity, 43.80% of participants were black employees, 27% were white employees, 11% were mixed-race employees, whilst only 0.90% participants were Asian employees. From these participants, approximately 9.00% spoke Setswana and 34.50% of the participants indicated English as their home language. Furthermore, 52.80% of the participants were married or living with their partner and one of the participants was widowed. The majority of the sample had obtained a degree, either a graduate degree or honours degree (31.00%), followed by 30.10% who have obtained a Grade 12 qualification (general high school education). In terms of the participants’ employment with the organisation in the banking industry, 47.20% of the participants were employed between one and five years, whilst 2.60% – 2.90% of participants were employed for 25 years or more, respectively.
A
Ethical clearance was obtained for the study from the University’s Faculty Research Committee (EMS15/06/ 18-01/02). The relevant parties, that is, human resources department, data privacy department and line managers from a large South African bank were approached to explain the purpose of the research and gain permission to conduct the research at their place of work. Three large departments were identified for collecting data. A total of 400 booklets were printed and distributed by hand by the researcher to each employee in the three departments. The process of
Descriptive statistics and structural equation modelling methods were implemented with Mplus 7.31 (Muthén & Muthén,
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented within a structural equation modelling framework to construct the latent variable measurement models (Brown,
The robust version of the maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) was used as an estimation method as it is robust against the possibility of data non-normality (Muthén & Muthén,
A correlation matrix was also generated for the latent variables, and effect sizes for the correlations would be considered as a medium effects for values of 0.30–0.49 and large effects for values between 0.50 and 0.84 (Cohen,
Structural model for the predictive validity investigation.
Descriptive statistics for the items of the workplace incivility scale.
Item | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Minimum value (%) | Maximum value (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
supincivil1 | 1.58 | 1.31 | 0.38 | −0.98 | 26.53 | 10.50 |
supincivil2 | 1.07 | 1.31 | 0.97 | −0.29 | 49.56 | 8.16 |
supincivil3 | 1.09 | 1.33 | 0.89 | −0.52 | 50.58 | 7.89 |
supincivil4 | 1.23 | 1.29 | 0.75 | −0.59 | 39.94 | 8.16 |
supincivil5 | 0.83 | 1.21 | 1.27 | 0.39 | 60.06 | 4.96 |
colincivil1 | 1.19 | 1.12 | 0.68 | −0.37 | 34.30 | 3.78 |
colincivil2 | 0.92 | 1.09 | 0.98 | 0.05 | 49.13 | 2.62 |
colincivil3 | 0.89 | 1.06 | 1.01 | 0.06 | 48.84 | 1.74 |
colincivil4 | 0.99 | 1.11 | 1.01 | 0.22 | 43.60 | 3.78 |
colincivil5 | 0.83 | 1.07 | 1.21 | 0.62 | 52.05 | 2.63 |
perincivil1 | 1.05 | 1.04 | 0.73 | −0.14 | 38.08 | 2.33 |
perincivil2 | 0.56 | 0.93 | 1.82 | 2.83 | 65.70 | 1.74 |
perincivil3 | 0.61 | 0.91 | 1.55 | 1.97 | 61.05 | 1.45 |
perincivil4 | 0.97 | 1.03 | 0.82 | −0.19 | 42.73 | 1.45 |
perincivil5 | 0.51 | 0.91 | 1.92 | 3.23 | 69.97 | 1.75 |
M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
The item descriptive statistics revealed that most of the individuals tend to score towards the lower end of the scales, that is, less incivility. The majority of the items had acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis compared to the set cut-off. However, in terms of kurtosis, items perincivil2 (2.83) and perincivil5 (3.23) were above the set cut-off criteria. This indicated that the robust MLR was an applicable and informed choice for continuing with the SEM implementations as there was evidence of non-normality in the data.
Results of the measurement models for the adapted WIS scale of Leiter and colleagues.
Model | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR | AIC | BIC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. One factor | 45 | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 13908.81 | 14081.64 |
2. Three factor |
48 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 13049.99 | 13201.34 |
As can be seen from
Standardised loadings for the latent factors.
Factor | Item | Loading | SE | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supervisor incivility | supincivil1 | 0.72 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.51 |
supincivil2 | 0.82 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.67 | |
supincivil3 | 0.88 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.78 | |
supincivil4 | 0.85 | 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.72 | |
supincivil5 | 0.76 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.58 | |
Colleague incivility | colincivil1 | 0.77 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.59 |
colincivil2 | 0.80 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.64 | |
colincivil3 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.70 | |
colincivil4 | 0.82 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.67 | |
colincivil5 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.54 | |
Instigated incivility | perincivil1 | 0.67 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.45 |
perincivil2 | 0.78 | 0.04 | 0.001 | 0.61 | |
perincivil3 | 0.85 | 0.03 | 0.001 | 0.72 | |
perincivil4 | 0.68 | 0.05 | 0.001 | 0.46 | |
perincivil5 | 0.61 | 0.12 | 0.001 | 0.37 |
Notes: SE, standard error. All
All the items loaded significantly on their respective factors (λ values > 0.60), and the latent factors explained a large amount of variance in all the corresponding items (
Given the results of the factor structure of the WIS, the study continued to investigate the remaining hypotheses with the three-factor structure of workplace incivility. The remaining study variables were added to the three-factor measurement model and the following was found: The total measurement model also fitted the data adequately (CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.05). Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as indicators of internal consistency for the variables and is presented on the diagonal of the correlation matrix in brackets.
Reliabilities and correlation matrix for the latent variables.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Supervisor incivility | (0.91) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
2. Colleague incivility | 0.54 |
(0.89) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
3. Instigated incivility | 0.50 |
0.67 |
(0.83) | - | - | - | - | - |
4. Bullying | 0.44 |
0.67 |
0.48 |
(0.84) | - | - | - | - |
5. Commitment | −0.35 |
−0.28 | −0.29 | −0.21 | (0.76) | - | - | - |
6. Work engagement | −0.34 |
−0.25 | −0.32 |
−0.26 | 0.59 |
(0.85) | - | - |
7. Turnover intention | 0.45 |
0.23 | 0.25 | 0.21 | −0.62 |
−0.57 |
(0.79) | - |
8. Job satisfaction | −0.37 |
−0.28 | −0.36 |
−0.26 | 0.64 |
0.74 |
−0.69 |
(0.88) |
Notes: Cronbach’s reliability coefficients in brackets on the diagonal. All correlations statistically signifi-cant at
Medium practical effect.
Large practical effect.
As can be seen on the diagonal of the matrix, all the reliability coefficients were acceptable (α ≥ 0.70; Nunnally & Bernstein,
Additionally, the workplace incivility factors were negatively correlated with positive outcomes and positively correlated with negative outcomes, as was and would be expected. For example, supervisor incivility was negatively correlated with job satisfaction (
To determine discriminant validity, the correlations between the variables were also considered and all the correlations were below the 0.85 guideline provided by Brown (
For predictive validity, regression paths were added to the measurement model in line with the study hypotheses, and the following was found: The model showed an acceptable fit to the data (CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.05). The results of the regressions are given in
Regression results for the structural model.
Structural path | β | SE | Result | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Supervisor incivility → Work engagement | −0.25 | 0.08 | 0.003 | Significant |
Supervisor incivility → Organisational commitment | −0.26 | 0.08 | 0.001 | Significant |
Supervisor incivility → Job satisfaction | −0.26 | 0.08 | 0.001 | Significant |
Supervisor incivility → Turnover intention | 0.45 | 0.07 | 0.001 | Significant |
Colleague incivility → Work engagement | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.841 | Not significant |
Colleague incivility → Organisational commitment | −0.06 | 0.10 | 0.574 | Not significant |
Colleague incivility → Job satisfaction | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.792 | Not significant |
Colleague incivility → Turnover intention | −0.07 | 0.09 | 0.461 | Not significant |
Instigated incivility → Work engagement | −0.20 | 0.11 | 0.058 | Not significant |
Instigated incivility → Organisational commitment | −0.12 | 0.10 | 0.232 | Not significant |
Instigated incivility → Job satisfaction | −0.25 | 0.10 | 0.014 | Significant |
Instigated incivility → Turnover intention | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.434 | Not significant |
β, beta coefficient; SE, standard error;
The study aimed to validate a WIS (Leiter
Preliminary analysis in the form of item descriptive statistics revealed that the majority of participants scored on the lower end of the item scales (Almost never or Seldom; 70.66%), that is, uncivil behaviours were not frequent – as expected from literature. However, a minority did report experiencing incivility more frequently (often or most of the time; on average 12.76%). This attests to a work environment where the majority of employees, in general, get along well. Nevertheless, it also indicates the power incivility can have when it is perceived by employees, as these employees may be higher risk recipients who feel excluded from being a valid member of the organisational community, which also thwarts their need for belonging (Leiter,
The first hypothesis of the study set out to confirm that the WIS consists of a three-factor structure based on the three sources of incivility (Leiter
The second hypothesis was concerned with establishing evidence for discriminant validity between workplace incivility and workplace bullying, as the two constructs are often mistaken for one another (Branch,
Furthermore, the correlation results indicated that as the scores on workplace incivility factors increased, they had negative relationships with positive outcome variables, whilst having positive relationships with negative outcome variables. For example, supervisor incivility had a negative relationship with job satisfaction as outcome variable. This is supported by previous research study by Dowden (
With regard to work engagement (Hypothesis 3), the regression results indicated that only supervisor incivility was a significant negative predictor of work engagement. This may be explained in the context of the Job Demands-Resources model, as supervisory support is a
With regard to organisational commitment (Hypothesis 4), the hypothesis was also only supported partially as supervisor incivility was once again the only significant negative predictor of organisational commitment. This may be because of the fact that when supervisors treat other employees in an uncivil manner they tend to experience the working environment as unsupportive and therefore a decrease in their affective commitment towards the organisation is the result (Rhoades
In relation to job satisfaction, Hypotheses 5 was also partially supported as supervisor incivility and instigated incivility both were significant in negatively predicting job satisfaction. The reason may be that the employee acts in an uncivil way so as to give expression to his or her dissatisfaction with his or her job situation, as well as experiencing a lack of civility from authority figures, which contributes to a negative attitude that the employee experiences towards his or her job (Holm,
Colleague incivility did not significantly predict any of the outcome variables (
The current study provided evidence of the validity and the reliability of a WIS pertaining to measurement in the South African banking industry. If organisations are aware of workplace incivility, they can consider strategies that can be implemented in order to eliminate the impact it can have on the organisational outcomes, which were highlighted in the study, that is, workplace bullying, work engagement, organisational commitment, job satisfaction as well as turnover intention. Specifically, the ‘broken windows’ perspective of neighbourhood policing might be an applicable analogy to consider and apply in this situation. This perspective holds that if broken windows (minor crimes; occurrences of incivility) in a neighbourhood (organisation) are addressed (e.g. by means of awareness and policies), the overall disorder that generates and sustains more serious crimes (more intense forms of workplace deviance, e.g. bullying) will decrease (cf. Welsh, Braga & Bruinsma,
The study also showed that workplace incivility perceived by employees from supervisors proved to be most problematic on outcomes. Therefore, if organisations are to address workplace incivility, it is necessary to address it in a sensitive manner as to not aggravate supervisors, which may cause them frustration (as it is based on the perception of the victim), which in turn could lead them to engage in more intense forms of workplace deviance such as workplace bullying (Andersson & Pearson,
The current study is not without limitations. The first main limitation involves the use of a cross-sectional survey design. This design restricts the study from definitively establishing relationships of a predictive (causal) nature. Thus, in order to be able to explore such relationships, it is necessary that future research is longitudinal in nature. This will enable researchers to definitively investigate the direction and causality of the relationships (Taris & Kompier,
The second main limitation is concerned with the participants of the current study. The sample consisted of participants within a single large organisation within the banking industry. Furthermore, the sampling strategy was convenience sampling, which is a non-probability strategy which is not as accurate a representation of the population as random sampling would be (random probability sampling). Therefore, caution is advised in making generalisations pertaining to this phenomenon in other industries. Future research in other industries is therefore suggested with stratified sampling as a potential sampling strategy.
The final main limitation is the implementation of a self-report questionnaire in collecting data, which has received much criticism regarding measurement bias matters (Spector,
The current study provided evidence for the validity of a WIS within the banking industry of South Africa. The scale was confirmed to be a three-factor structure based on the three sources of workplace incivility (supervisor, colleague and instigated). The scale also presented discriminant validity from workplace bullying. In terms of predictive validity, significant negative relationships were found from workplace incivility to work engagement, organisational commitment and job satisfaction, with a positive relationship to turnover intention. Therefore, it is clear that management should refrain from neglecting workplace incivility, as it can have impact on individual and organisational outcomes.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships, which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
This publication is based on the master’s dissertation of O.S. (North-West University). L.D.B. (North-West University) was the study leader of the project, the corresponding author and performed the statistical analyses. The first and second authors contributed equally to the publication version. L.B. (North-West University) was the co-supervisor of the dissertation. M.P.L. (Acadia University) acted as expert reviewer and provided important conceptual input on the manuscript.