Chapter 6: Conclusions, Limitations and Recommendations
2.6 Uncivil Workplace Behaviour (Incivility)
contextualises the need for occupational stress to be a crucial area of investigation as the benefit of its understanding provides the impetus to further examine its negative outcomes, such as uncivil workplace behaviour, but also build on the existing knowledge of PsyCap’s role as a moderating factor within the relationship.
As far as could be ascertained, prominent literature detailing the relationship between occupational stress and uncivil workplace behaviour (Van Jaarsveld, Walker & Skarlicki, 2010) as well as that of job involvement (Setar, Buitendach & Kanengoni, 2015) in conjunction with the role of psychological capital as a moderating factor in this relationship (Herbert, 2011; Setar, Buitendach & Kanengoni, 2015) were identified. However, no studies recognised the relationship between occupational stress, uncivil workplace behaviour, job satisfaction and the moderating role of psychological capital amongst call centre employees within the South African context, let alone that of the Emergency Control Unit employees.
Taking the above into account, Andersson and Pearson (1999, p.457) purport that incivility can be defined as “a low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviours are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others”. Within the workplace, issues of incivility centre around acts that are often considered deviant in nature and are in violation of the commonly accepted, and often unwritten, workplace norms and acceptable standards of workplace behaviour (Roberts et al., 2011). Furthermore, the widespread phenomenon of incivility presents a multitude of far-reaching implications for effective organisational performance (Cortina, Magley, Williams & Langhout, 2001). Therein, uncivil workplace behaviour has cost organisations close to $3 billion annually according to Pearson and Porath (2009) through high turnover, increased absenteeism and subpar performance. The negative effects of incivility within the workplace are often channelled through employees' strained interactions; retribution against uncivil working conditions thus, manifests in intentionally lowered productivity, working fewer hours, a loss of respect for management and superiors, and even resignation due to uncivil working conditions (Pearson & Porath, 2009).
It is imperative moving forward, that there is an acknowledgement of the overlap between uncivil workplace behaviour/incivility and that of counterproductive work behaviours (CWB).
The differentiation between these two concepts can be reduced to three key characteristics;
while uncivil workplace behaviour is not considered overtly hostile, threatening or intentional, contrastingly CWB is carried out with harmful intent toward either the individual or organisation (Setar, Buitendach & Kanengoni, 2015). However, it has been noted that due to the seemingly ambiguous and mild nature of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Roberts et al., 2011), individuals who engage in such conduct can easily refute any claims that they acted with intention (Penney and Spector, 2005). Therein, a clear distinction between uncivil
workplace behaviour and CWB can be made in terms of incivility being regarded as a stressor, whilst CWB is seen as a reaction or response to stress (Spector & Fox, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2005). Anderson and Pearson (1999) indicated that in most research, there is a preoccupation with aspects of violence, aggression and deviant behaviour within the workplace context of which are congruent with the harmful intent of CWB. Consequently, milder forms of inconsiderate actions and verbalisations have been overlooked in preceding research (Setar, Buitendach & Kanengoni, 2015).
Studies concentrated around the examination of the relationship between occupational stress and incivility have indicated that there are increased levels of stress among individuals exposed to uncivil working conditions (Penney & Spector, 2005). Furthermore, this was corroborated by Roberts et al. (2011) who reported increased levels of stress in relation to an increase in workplace incivility when examining the relationship between occupational stress, workplace incivility and the role of psychological capital as a moderating factor. What is strikingly interesting about Roberts et al.’s (2011) findings, is that it illustrated a positive relationship between occupational stress and uncivil workplace behaviour but moreover, identified the buffering role that psychological capital assumed in this relationship; that is, its prevalence saw diminished levels of incivility even in elevated levels of occupational stress (Roberts et al., 2011). Although his sample consisted of university students who were demographically younger, such findings provide the impetus for further examination of these constructs within this study, in conjunction with the job satisfaction (as a positive psychological outcome) in order to assess the extent to which PsyCap moderates this relationship, especially within the call centre domain which is known for its stressful climate (Holman, Wood & Stride, 2005;
Gordi, 2006; Kazarlarska, 2009; Simons & Buitendach, 2013).
Previous research conducted by Porath and Erez (2007) in terms of the organisational repercussions of incivility informed the notions of Pearson and Porath (2009) who related acts of uncivil workplace behaviour with decreased organisational citizenship and commitment behaviours, job satisfaction and resultantly, increased turnover (Penney & Spector, 2005; Lim
& Teo, 2009). The prevalence of uncivil workplace behaviour then, causes a massive chain- reaction for both job satisfaction and employee turnover as Tett and Meyer (1993) identified a significant negative relationship between levels of job satisfaction and turnover; these findings were corroborated by Delobelle, Rawlinson, Ntuli, Malatsi, Decock and Depoorter (2010) almost a decade and a half later which further exacerbates the importance of studying job satisfaction as a consequence of uncivil workplace behaviour and lays the foundation for broadening the scope of inquiry to examine employee turnover in future research.