work engagement

1. Relationships among workplace
incivility, work engagement and
job performance
Chih-Hung Wang
National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan, and
Hsi-Tien Chen
National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – This empirical study explored how coworker incivility and customer incivility affect the work
engagement and job performance of frontline employees.
Design/methodology/approach – To investigate the incivility and characteristics of hospitality industry
workplaces, this study recruited frontline employees from tourist hotels as study participants. Because
complete contact information could not be obtained for this population, convenience sampling was employed. A
structured questionnaire was used for data collection.
Findings – Coworker incivility and customer incivility reduced work engagement and job performance. The
effects of coworker incivility on the work engagement and job performance are greater than those of customer
incivility. Furthermore, work engagement has a positive effect on the job performance.
Originality/value – Although studies have investigated the effects of customer incivility, these effects have not
been compared with those of coworker incivility. Moreover, studies on the influence of coworker and customer
incivility on job performance and work engagement in the hospitality industry and on those of work engagement
on job performance have been scant. The current empirical study investigated the effects of coworker and
customer incivility on the job performance and work engagement and of frontline hospitality employees.
Keywords Coworker incivility, Customer incivility, Work engagement, Job performance
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Hospitality industry enjoys a flourishing job market. However, workplaces in the industry
are hampered by various problems that result in high frontline employee turnover rates and
consequently increased employee recruitment, selection and training costs (Bonn and
Forbringer, 1992; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Goh and Okumus, 2020). Frontline
employees in the hospitality industry are often exposed to a fast-paced work environment
defined by long hours and immense pressure, which creates a physiological load and hinders
their emotional regulation over time (Goh and Lee, 2018). As a means of coping with their
situation, some frontline employees frequently engage in low-intensity negative behavior to
alleviate or transfer their physical loads and negative emotions. Moreover, in the hospitality
industry, certain unwritten rules exist among colleagues of varying seniority that increase
the likelihood and severity of workplace incivility.
Because the idea that “the customer is always right” is widely practiced currently, consumer
rights are often prioritized above all else, which has resulted in situations where some
customers act selfishly with little regard for the feelings of service employees, making customer
incivility (e.g. speaking insolently, acting rudely, showing no respect and being unreasonable,
irrational and inattentive) a common phenomenon (Han et al., 2016). This incivility had led to a
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance
This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of China (Taiwan)
[Grant number MOST 106-2410-H-142-016 -].
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm
Received 10 September 2019
Revised 27 December 2019
25 February 2020
24 April 2020
Accepted 24 April 2020
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
DOI 10.1108/JHTI-09-2019-0105

2. deteriorating relationship between service employees and customers, where service employees
are treated unjustly and consequently customers are unable to enjoy a good service experience.
Workplace incivility is widespread. Research has shown that most employees have
experienced workplace incivility. For instance, Cortina et al. (2001) reported that 71% of the
included US workers had experienced workplace incivility; moreover, Porath and Pearson
(2010) indicated that 96% of the included employees had experienced workplace incivility and
99% had witnessed it. Nevertheless, because intention behind workplace incivility is generally
unclear and harm caused to receiving party is often minor, managers rarely perceive it as
problematic and may pay little regard to it; consequently, they do not implement intervention
mechanisms against incivility; neglect or even disregard such behavior for an extended period
of time (Pearson et al., 2001); and lack an awareness or alertness of its negative effects.
Workplace incivility may even reduce employee job satisfaction and productivity and increase
instances of job burnout and intention to leave, eventually compromising employee well-being
and organizational performance (Lewis and Malecha, 2011; Han et al., 2016).
In the domains of tourism and hospitality, work engagement and job performance are
crucial research topics (Baum et al., 2016). Work engagement reflects the positive work-
related mental state of an employee (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004); moreover, it is considered
an important indicator of work attitude and behavior (Baum et al., 2016), with effects contrary
to those of job burnout (Maslach and Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Studies have
contended that work engagement and job burnout carry varying connotations and thus
cannot be measured similarly; nevertheless, the two are closely related (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Customer incivility and coworker incivility are harmful and unfavorable job demands and
external pressures imposed by customers and coworkers, respectively. Laschinger et al.
(2009) and Han et al. (2016) have demonstrated that these can lead to job burnout and thus
reduce work engagement. Furthermore, the job demands–resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti
et al., 2001) and stress-coping model (Lazarus, 1999) suggest that external pressure and job
demands negatively affect job performance by causing strain and dissatisfaction. Employee
job performance is critical to company operational efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover,
Lim et al. (2008) and Sliter et al. (2012) have confirmed that coworker incivility and customer
incivility affect work engagement negatively. However, the effects of such incivility on the
work engagement of frontline employees in the hospitality industry and the differences in
these effects have not been studied (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Work engagement reflects the
work attitude of employees. Comparing the effects of coworker and customer incivility on
work engagement can aid managers in prioritizing improvement strategies. Therefore, the
present study investigated and compared these effects on frontline hospitality employees.
Work engagement is a positive and active attitude toward working (Kahn, 1990). This
intrinsic motivation drives individuals to become engrossed in their work (Zhang and Bartol,
2010), thereby elevating their job performance (Salanova et al., 2005). Studies have shown that
work engagement has a positive effect on job performance (Salanova et al., 2005; Halbesleben
and Wheeler, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Karatepe and Aga, 2016). However,
studies on the effect of frontline employees’ work engagement on their job performance have
been scarce. Accordingly, this study assessed the effect of hospitality industry frontline
employees’ work engagement on their job performance.
Literature review and hypotheses
Workplace incivility
Workplace incivility as a concept was introduced by Katz (1964) when proposing the idea of
“extra-role behavior.” Relevant studies thereafter investigated positive and active employee
behavior in organizations, but by the 1990s, their focus had shifted to negative and passive
employee behaviors and the related effects. Robinson and Bennett (1995) noted that focus of
discussion on extra-role behavior is organizational citizenship behavior. However, these
JHTI

3. discussions ignore the dark side of human nature and negative attitudes and behaviors that it
creates. Thus, Robinson and Bennett (1995) recommended that systematic and in-depth research
be performed to explore problems arising from employees’ “dark” or unfavorable behaviors.
Studying employees’ negative behaviors subsequently became a trend. However, the
majority of these studies focused on high-intensity, highly noticeable negative behaviors
such as aggressive and violent behavior (Baron and Neuman, 1996; Douglas and Martinko,
2001; Yang et al., 2012; Ram, 2018), bullying behavior (Hershcovis, 2011; Glasø et al., 2011;
Nielsen et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2019), deviant behavior (Yen and Teng, 2013; Robinson et al.,
2014; Lugosi, 2019), antisocial behavior (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; Lee et al., 2005),
employee theft (Goh and Kong, 2016) and intentional food wastage (Goh and Jie, 2019).
Subsequently, studies began to concentrate on low-intensity behaviors that have
unnoticeable intentions to harm but violate the principle of mutual respect, with incivility
becoming one of the focuses of such research (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al.,
2001). Anderson and Pearson (1999) defined incivility as low-intensity deviant behavior that
violates the principle of mutual respect in the workplace and has an unclear intention of
harming the subject in question. Some scholars view workplace incivility as the opposite of
prosocial organizational behavior or organizational citizenship behavior (Morrow et al., 2011),
whereas some view it a negative, lower-intensity workplace behavior. Workplace incivility
includes sycophancy, inconsiderateness and aggressive behavior such as engaging in violent
attacks, sexual harassment, bullying and destructive behavior as well as forming cliques and
causing trouble (Anderson and Pearson, 1999; Lim and Cortina, 2005; Estes and Wang, 2008;
Schilpzand et al., 2016).
Morrow et al. (2011) noted that workplace incivility features the following characteristics –
rule violation, unclear intention and low intensity. Rule violation refers to actors violating the
norms of social interaction; unclear intention refers to actors having or not having the
subjective intent to harm others; and low intensity refers to actors not displaying violent
behavior such as physical or verbal attacks.
The stress-coping model posits that external pressure can spark a series of emotional and
cognitive processes in an individual (Lazarus, 1999). Consequently, employees encountering
workplace incivility will experience two “how to” stages, namely “how to feel” (emotional
assessment) and “how to respond” (cognitive choice). Such seemingly trivial mistreatment
may lead to employees’ long-term dissatisfaction that, in turn, escalates into workplace
aggression and serious interpersonal conflicts (Anderson and Pearson, 1999). These events
form a negative spiral and can have serious negative effects on individual and organizational
performance (Estes and Wang, 2008; Lim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2000; Porath and Pearson,
2012; Schilpzand et al., 2016).
Coworker incivility and customer incivility
Workplace incivility can be divided into coworker incivility and customer incivility.
Coworker incivility occurs between company employees. Typical coworker incivility
includes passive or negative interpersonal interactions such as not saying please or thank
you, ignoring others, vilifying others, excluding others from the group, behaving violently
toward others and shouting. Such behaviors often have negative effects such as emotional
exhaustion (Hur et al., 2016), job burnout (Laschinger et al., 2009), increased work effort
(Sakurai and Jex, 2012), employee incivility toward customers (Torres et al., 2017), withdrawal
(Lim and Cortina, 2005; Sliter et al., 2012), reduced job satisfaction (Laschinger et al., 2009;
Chen and Wang, 2019), decreased organizational commitment (Laschinger et al., 2009),
decreased job performance (Lim et al., 2008; Sliter et al., 2012; Arasli et al., 2018), intention to
leave (Laschinger et al., 2009; Chen and Wang, 2019) and inferior psychological well-being
(Lim and Cortina, 2005), all of which may lead to family–work conflicts (Lim and Lee, 2011)
and decreased marital satisfaction (Ferguson, 2011).
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

4. Customer incivility is similar to coworker incivility; however, the perpetrators are from
outside of the organization. Moreover, customer incivility has negative effects, which result in
negative emotional experiences (Torres et al., 2017), faking positive emotions and repressing
negative emotions (e.g. emotional labor; Sliter et al., 2010), coworker incivility (Torres et al.,
2017), employee incivility toward customers (Torres et al., 2017), inhibited emotional
regulation (Adams and Webster, 2013), increased job demands (Van Jaarsveld et al., 2010),
emotional exhaustion (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Hur et al., 2016), job burnout (Han et al., 2016),
withdrawal (Sliter et al., 2012), decreased job performance (Sliter et al., 2012; Arasli et al., 2018)
and reduced job satisfaction (Wright and Cropanzano, 1998). In addition, customer incivility
may lead to coworker incivility (van Jaarsveld et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2014).
Work engagement
Kahn (1990) introduced the work engagement concept and asserted that work engagement
entails company employees controlling and utilizing their selves to become closer to their job
roles. This concept maintains that employees fully committed to their work are also more
willing to work and that this “willingness” elevates their job performance (Salanova et al.,
2005). In addition, work engagement reflects individuals’ mastery of the skills required by the
work itself. Individuals with high work engagement connect their personal values and their
work together to fulfill their physiological, cognitive and emotional selves, thereby enabling
them to take the initiative and be dedicated to their work (Kahn, 1990).
Work engagement – a positive, self-realizing mental state in which an individual feels
connected to his or her work (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) – consists of three dimensions
(Salanova et al., 2005): (1) vigor, characterized by high energy levels during work, willingness
to devote effort to work and perseverance in the face of adversity; (2) dedication,
characterized by strong work involvement and senses of enthusiasm, significance,
confidence and fearlessness in the face of challenges; and (3) absorption, characterized by
full concentration on work, a state in which time passes quickly and detachment from work
becomes difficult, to the extent that external affairs are unlikely to influence job performance.
Job performance
Job performance is the behavior exhibited and performance delivered by an organization
member to fulfill the expectations, regulations or formal roles of the organization (Campbell
et al., 1990). In brief, job performance refers to organizational goal-related behaviors exhibited
by an individual under self-control (Campbell et al., 1993). Borman and Motowidlo (1993)
defined job performance as all actions taken to achieve organizational goals, and they
indicated that the contributions made by such behaviors can be measured.
Hypotheses
Albrecht et al. (2015) and Bakker and Albrecht (2018) have proposed theoretical frameworks and
models of factors influencing work engagement (e.g. job resource and job demands) or
consequences of work engagement (e.g. attitude, performance and behavior). The JD-R model is
popular for understanding how job characteristics engender thestrain or well-being ofemployees
inanorganization(Demeroutietal.,2001).Highjobdemandscausestrainandhinderperformance,
whereas abundant resources result in high motivation and productivity. Per the JD-R model,
workplaceincivilityisconsideredajobdemandinanorganizationandmaythushamperemployee
work engagement and performance from the perspective (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Workplace incivility is not a rare phenomenon. Research has shown that most employees
have experienced or witnessed workplace incivility (Cortina et al., 2001; Porath and Pearson,
2010; Sliter et al., 2012; Schilpzand et al., 2016). Hospitality industry is no exception to this
phenomenon,andstudiesonworkplaceincivilityhavebeenconductedintheindustry(Hanetal.,
2016;Alolaetal.,2019;ChenandWang,2019).Workplaceincivilitycanbedividedintocoworker
incivility and customer incivility. Studies have shown that coworker incivility may trigger job
JHTI

5. burnout(Laschingeretal.,2009),whichistheoppositeofworkengagement(MaslachandLeiter,
1997;SchaufeliandBakker,2004).Employeeswhoexperiencejobburnoutwillnotbeengagedin
their work (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), and studies have confirmed that coworker incivility
lowersemployeejob performance(Limetal., 2008; Sliteret al., 2012; Arasliet al., 2018).Coworker
incivility potentially leads to enduring and harmful demands and pressure. Per the JD-R
(Demeroutietal.,2001)andstress-coping(Lazarus,1999)models,coworkerincivilitymayreduce
work engagement and hamper job performance; therefore, we propose H1 and H2:
H1. Coworker incivility negatively affects the work engagement of frontline employees.
H2. Coworker incivility negatively affects the job performance of frontline employees.
Customer incivility has become a common phenomenon in the hospitality industry (Han et al.,
2016; Torres et al., 2017) and may lead to job burnout in employees in this industry (e.g. Han
et al., 2016), and many scholars have agreed that job burnout is the opposite of work
engagement (Maslach and Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Job burnout prevents
employees from becoming immersed in their work (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Per the JD-R
(Demerouti et al., 2001) and stress-coping (Lazarus, 1999) models, several negative
consequences of job demands and pressure can hinder an individual’s performance. In
addition, customer incivility can jeopardize employee performance (e.g. Lim et al., 2008; Sliter
et al., 2012; Arasli et al., 2018). Thus, we propose H3 and H4:
H3. Customer incivility negatively affects the work engagement of frontline employees.
H4. Customer incivility negatively affects the job performance of frontline employees.
Work engagement is a positive and active attitude toward working (Kahn, 1990). This
intrinsic motivation drives individuals to become engrossed in their work (Zhang and Bartol,
2010), thereby improving their job performance (Salanova et al., 2005). Studies have shown
that work engagement has a positive effect on job performance (Salanova et al., 2005;
Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Breevaart et al., 2015;
Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Shin et al., 2020). However, in the context of hospitality, studies on
the effect of frontline employees’ work engagement on their job performance have been scant
(Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kim and Koo, 2017).
Our review of hospitality industry–related studies revealed only a few studies on work
engagement and job performance (e.g. Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016; Kim and Koo, 2017).
Karatepe (2013) and Karatepe and Olugbade (2016) have indicated that work engagement
improves job performance. However, Kim and Koo (2017) revealed that the work engagement–
job performance relationship is nonsignificant. Work engagement demonstrated a
nonsignificant innovative behavior–mediated effect on job performance. Management-related
studies have reported that work engagement positively affects job performance in various
industries (Salanova et al., 2005; Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008; Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al.,
2011; Breevaart et al., 2015; Karatepe and Aga, 2016; Shin et al., 2020). Therefore, we propose H5:
H5. Work engagement positively affects job performance of frontline employees.
On the basis of the hypotheses, the following framework was formed (see Figure 1):
Coworker
incivility
Customer
incivility
Work
engagement
Job performance
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
Figure 1.
Research framework
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

6. Research methods
Study sample
According to the Act for the Development of Tourism enacted by the Taiwanese government,
accommodation enterprises are divided into tourist hotel enterprises, hotel enterprises and
homestay facilities. Tourist hotels have more employees and facilities than do hotels
and homestay facilities and thus can provide international and domestic tourists with lodging
and related services. Therefore, these hotels are highly representative of the hospitality
industry. The frequency and intensity of interaction between frontline employees and their
coworkers or customers are extremely high in these hotels. To investigate the incivility and
characteristics of hospitality industry workplaces, this study recruited frontline employees
from tourist hotels as study participants. Because complete contact information could not be
obtained for this population, convenience sampling was employed. A structured
questionnaire was used for data collection from October and November of 2018.
Questionnaire design
Because coworker incivility, customer incivility and work engagement are perceived
subjectively by frontline employees, questions of these aspects were answered by frontline
employees. By comparison, job performance is an organization’s evaluation of its employees’
performance according to job standards and norms. To avoid frontline employees from
“overinflating” their job performance scores, questions related to job performance were
answered by their immediate supervisors.
This study used employee–supervisor paired questionnaires for data collection. The
employee questionnaire contained scales measuring coworker incivility, customer incivility,
work engagement and social desirability, whereas the supervisor questionnaire included a
scale measuring the job performance of the employees. Participants were invited from the
authors’ social networks and with the assistance of human resource managers at tourist
hotels. Frontline employees and their immediate supervisors were invited to participate in
this study. The employee and supervisor questionnaires were delivered and collected in
sealed envelopes to ensure anonymity. The paired questionnaires were valid only if the
supervisor and employee questionnaire responses were collected at the same time.
To measure coworker and customer incivility, this study adopted the workplace incivility
scale (1 dimension and 7 items) by Cortina et al. (2001) and the customer incivility scale
(1 dimension and 11 items) by Sliter et al. (2012) – both of which are five-point Likert scales
(1 5 never and 5 5 frequently).
To measure work engagement, this study adopted the Utrecht work engagement scale
introduced by Schaufeli et al. (2002). The scale comprises three dimensions: vigor, dedication
and absorption, which contain six, five and six items, respectively. To measure job
performance, this study employed the service performance scale proposed by Liao and
Chuang (2004), which comprises one dimension and seven items. The scales were scored
using a five-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly disagree and 5 5 strongly agree).
The use of self-report scales to measure organizational behavior–related variables is
prone to social desirability bias, leading to study results that deviate from the true results. To
solve this problem, this study included social desirability–related items to assess the social
desirability effect and test the common method biases. To measure social desirability, the
short-form version of the Marlowe–Crowne scale presented by Reynolds (1982) was adopted.
The scale comprises 13 items with “yes” or “no” answers. Of the 13 items, seven are negatively
worded and six are positively worded. Please see the appendix for details.
Research results
To the 500 paired questionnaires distributed, 312 responses were valid (valid response
rate 5 62.4%). The majority of the participants were female (70.5%), young (aged 21–30
JHTI

7. [56.4%] and 31–40 [27.2%]), university or junior college graduates (83.3%) and single (76.9%).
In addition, most earned NT$20,001–30,000 a month (56.4%) (followed by NT$30,001–40,000
a month [15.4%]), had worked at their current company for three years or less (67.3%) and
worked in the food and beverage department (54.5%) (followed by the customer service
department [33.0%]) (see Table 1). Our sample’s characteristics were consistent with the
hospitality workforce: more employees were female, and they were relatively young (Chen
and Wang, 2019; Goh and Okumus, 2020).
Few survey data (<1%) were missing, and these were imputed using a mean substitution
technique. The mean value of a variable was thus used in place of missing values of that
variable. Overall, the participants perceived moderate coworker incivility; the means of the
coworker incivility–related indicators (i.e. W1–W7) all lay on the two sides of the median (i.e.
3), signifying that the frequency of coworker incivility was within an acceptable range. By
contrast, most of the participants perceived relatively high customer incivility (i.e. all
indicator (C1–C11) scores were higher than 3.5); exhibited relatively high work engagement
(i.e. their vigor (V), dedication (D) and absorption (A) all had means higher than 3.5); and
displayed favorable job performance (i.e. their P1–P7 means were all higher than 3.5). For
each item, the kurtosis (ranging from 0.653 to 0.521) and skewness (ranging from 0.798 to
0.792) supported the normality of the survey data. All variables had Cronbach’s α scored
higher than 0.8, which confirmed the reliability of the scales.
A social desirability score was obtained by counting the socially desirable events reported
by the participants. The mean of the social desirability scale was 5.869, indicating low
correlation between social desirability and the other variables (correlation coefficients
ranging from 0.137 to 0.149) and signifying that the study participants’ answers were
relatively unaffected by social desirability and common method biases. Moreover, none of the
correlation coefficients between the variables had an absolute value that exceeded 1 under a
95% confidence interval, verifying that the scale had favorable discriminant validity.
Demographic characteristics n %
Gender Male 92 29.5
Female 220 70.5
Age 20 and below 18 5.8
21–30 176 56.4
31–40 85 27.2
41–50 22 7.1
51 and above 11 3.5
Education High school 34 10.9
College/university 260 83.3
Graduate school 18 5.8
Marital status Single 240 76.9
Married 72 23.1
Monthly income NT$20,000 and below 43 13.8
NT$20,001–30,000 176 56.4
NT$30,001–40,000 48 15.4
NT$40,001–50,000 30 9.6
NT$50,001 and above 15 4.8
Duration 3 years and below 210 67.3
4–6 years 62 19.9
7 years and above 40 12.8
Department Food and beverage 170 54.5
Customer service 103 33.0
Others 39 12.5
Table 1.
Sample profile
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

8. Partial least squares–structural equation modeling (SEM) – which enables simultaneous
analysis of hypothesized relationships and provides various superior statistical properties
compared with other statistical tools (e.g. regression and covariance-based SEM) – was
adopted to test our current hypotheses. The measurement models showed factor loading
coefficients between 0.711 and 0.950 and t values that reached significant levels, confirming
the validity of each indicator. The reliability (R2
) of each indicator ranged between 0.505 and
0.903, which confirmed their reliability. The composite reliability coefficients of the latent
variables ranged between 0.905 and 0.984, and the average variance extracted ranged
between 0.720 and 0.895, verifying the reliability and validity of the latent variables (see
Table 2).
Concerning the structural models, coworker incivility and work engagement had a path
coefficient of 0.553 (f2
5 0.535; q2
5 0.252), whereas customer incivility and work
engagement had a path coefficient of 0.404 (f2
5 0.268; q2
5 0.173); both incivilities reached
significance. R2
equaled 0.858, indicating that coworker incivility and customer incivility
explained 85.8% of variance in work engagement. Regarding the effects of coworker
incivility and customer incivility on work engagement, the effect of coworker incivility was
stronger. The path coefficients of coworker incivility, customer incivility and work
engagement to job performance were 0.211 (f2
5 0.017; q2
5 0.009), 0.125 (f2
5 0.006;
q2
5 0.001) and 0.720 (f2
5 0.202; q2
5 0.147), respectively. This indicated that only customer
incivility did not have a significant effect on job performance. R2
equaled 0.648, showing that
Variables M (SD)
Factor
loading t
Error
variance t R2
Cr (α) AVE
W1 2.984 0.763 0.835 48.860 0.155 36.259 0.697 0.958 (0.949) 0.767
W2 2.974 0.765 0.858 53.446 0.163 42.938 0.735
W3 2.862 0.697 0.902 85.646 0.168 49.869 0.814
W4 2.907 0.753 0.906 92.336 0.167 50.115 0.821
W5 2.817 0.723 0.929 116.240 0.172 55.555 0.864
W6 3.013 0.806 0.891 77.861 0.166 48.861 0.794
W7 3.039 0.712 0.804 45.714 0.149 36.383 0.647
C1 3.744 0.542 0.867 47.878 0.114 38.408 0.753 0.966 (0.961) 0.720
C2 3.692 0.533 0.875 51.738 0.107 31.901 0.765
C3 3.753 0.561 0.876 54.311 0.114 44.863 0.768
C4 3.689 0.510 0.897 53.476 0.112 43.125 0.804
C5 3.718 0.529 0.857 44.846 0.113 36.475 0.734
C6 3.712 0.514 0.867 43.906 0.109 40.758 0.751
C7 3.721 0.522 0.855 41.514 0.110 40.884 0.730
C8 3.699 0.525 0.885 49.094 0.111 47.820 0.783
C9 3.708 0.502 0.880 47.789 0.109 38.069 0.774
C10 3.571 0.591 0.711 23.029 0.085 21.934 0.505
C11 3.609 0.574 0.742 25.521 0.089 23.263 0.551
V 3.501 0.486 0.880 63.480 0.376 43.122 0.775 0.905 (0.842) 0.760
D 3.608 0.566 0.879 58.906 0.380 43.984 0.772
A 3.534 0.535 0.856 48.865 0.392 44.634 0.733
P1 3.824 0.707 0.945 105.077 0.155 54.682 0.893 0.984 (0.980) 0.895
P2 3.792 0.684 0.948 103.149 0.146 57.169 0.899
P3 3.766 0.694 0.950 108.500 0.147 62.567 0.903
P4 3.824 0.688 0.949 107.556 0.151 62.495 0.901
P5 3.728 0.671 0.947 108.610 0.153 58.283 0.897
P6 3.718 0.720 0.937 94.132 0.151 52.961 0.879
P7 3.737 0.705 0.945 109.070 0.153 49.944 0.893
Note(s): *p < 0.05
Table 2.
Results of
measurement model
JHTI

9. coworker incivility, customer incivility and work engagement explained 64.8% of variance in
job performance. Accordingly, H1, H2, H3 and H5 were supported and H4 was not supported
(see Table 3).
In-depth comparison of the effects of coworker and customer incivility on job performance
revealed that coworker incivility had both significant direct ( 0.211) and indirect ( 0.397)
effects, where the indirect effect accounted for 65.3% (i.e. 0.397/ 0.608) of the overall effect.
Customer incivility demonstrated a nonsignificant direct effect on job performance but a
significant indirect effect (i.e. 0.291). The overall effect of customer incivility on job
performance was significant ( 0.166). Nevertheless, the overall effect of customer incivility
on job performance was merely 27.3% of that of coworker incivility. Employee encounters
with uncivil customers may be one-time occurrences, whereas those with an uncivil coworker
may be frequent. Thus, Schilpzand et al. (2016) presumed that customer incivility is less
detrimental than coworker incivility. Our current empirical evidence corroborates this
presumption for the first time.
Conclusion and recommendations
Conclusions
Our empirical results demonstrate the negative effects of both customer incivility and
coworker incivility on frontline employees’ work engagement: coworker incivility had a
stronger negative effect on work engagement than did customer incivility; furthermore,
coworker incivility and work engagement respectively demonstrated negative and positive
effects on job performance, whereas customer incivility demonstrated no effect on job
performance.
Theoretical implications
Topics related to workplace incivility have been studied extensively in management fields
(Schilpzand et al., 2016). In the field of hospitality, how customer incivility affects job burnout
and the turnover intentions of frontline employees in restaurants and hotels has been studied
(Han et al., 2016; Alola et al., 2019; Chen and Wang, 2019); however, studies comparing the
effects of coworker and customer incivility are rare. In addition, few studies have focused on
how these factors affect job performance or work engagement or on how work engagement
affects job performance in the hospitality industry. Furthermore, relatively little is known
about whether incivility from different sources (i.e. coworkers and customers) can lead to
varied outcomes or severities (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Therefore, this study empirically
examined and compared the effects of coworker incivility and customer incivility on the work
Relationship Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Coworker incivility → Work
engagement
0.553* (t 5 14.506) – 0.553* (t 5 14.506)
Customer incivility → Work
engagement
0.404* (t 5 10.453) – 0.404* (t 5 10.453)
Coworker incivility → Job
performance
0.211* (t 5 2.619) 0.397* (t 5 12.114) 0.608* (t 5 8.283)
Customer incivility → Job
performance
0.125 (t 5 1.593) 0.291* (t 5 7.864) 0.166* (t 5 2.163)
Work engagement → Job
performance
0.720* (t 5 9.157) – 0.720* (t 5 9.157)
Note(s): *p < 0.05
Table 3.
Coefficients of direct
effect, indirect effect
and total effect
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

10. engagement and job performance of frontline employees in the hospitality industry, the
results of which can be used as a reference for use in subsequent studies and management
fields. Furthermore, the current results indicate that customer incivility may not affect job
performance negatively. Thus, the mechanism underlying the customer incivility–job
performance relationship (i.e. fostering or hindering factors) warrants further research.
Practical implications
Our current results reveal that customer and coworker incivility reduce the work engagement
and job performance of frontline employees, with coworker incivility having the stronger
effect – corroborating the findings of Lim et al. (2008), Sliter et al. (2012) and Arasli et al. (2018)
and the presumption of Schilpzand et al. (2016). Thus, unhealthy working environments may
trigger workplace incivility (Chen and Wang, 2019). Frontline employees have long working
hours and heavy workloads. The physical and emotional burdens on frontline employees are
thus considerable; therefore, human resource requirements are high, and reasonable
scheduling and timely organizational support are crucial. Furthermore, people tend to act less
civilly toward outgroup members rather than toward in-group members (Cortina, 2008). A
good organizational climate allows employees to generate a sense of social identity. Thus,
upper management in hotels must pay close attention to coworker incivility in and host
regular cultural and recreational activities to relieve employees’ work stress and ensure close
employee relationships – all to prevent the detrimental effects of coworker incivility on
employee work engagement and job performance.
Customer incivility had a significant effect on work engagement, and customer incivility
also had an indirect effect on employee job performance through work engagement. This
study demonstrated for the first time that work engagement mediates the customer
incivility–job performance relationship. Moreover, because customer incivility is a burden on
frontline employees, they consider social support from their immediate supervisors a vital
resource (Demerouti et al., 2001). Therefore, upper management in hotels must look out for
instances of customer incivility, provide timely support and assistance to frontline employees
and stand up to protect their frontline employees’ dignity and rights when they suffer
unreasonable treatment and bullying. These efforts will prevent frontline employees’ work
engagement from worsening and possibly compromising their job performance.
The empirical results did not support the direct effect of customer incivility on job
performance. In fact, the effect was even positive (0.125). The hypothesis proposed in this
study regarding a customer incivility–job performance path coefficient was not significantly
supported by the statistical data. Thus, this study surmised that when faced with customer
incivility, most frontline employees in tourist hotels attempted to accommodate the
customers’ requests rather than confronting them or adopting noncooperative actions to
lower customer interaction. The goal is to achieve internal harmony. Because the job
performance of the frontline employees was evaluated by their immediate supervisors, the
scores might be positively affected by customer incivility. Even if customer incivility has a
positive direct effect on job performance, the total effect of customer incivility on job
performance remains significant and negative. Upper management in hotels thus must
protect their frontline employees from exposure to customer incivility.
Limitations and future directions
This study only selected frontline employees working in tourist hotels as the study
participants. Future studies may incorporate other employee types in the hospitality industry
to expand the generalizability of the theories presented. Our results reveal that coworker
incivility has stronger negative effects on work engagement and job performance than
customer incivility has. However, the mechanism underlying these effects could not be
JHTI

11. identified. Therefore, qualitative studies investigating the reasons the effects of coworker
incivility on work engagement and job performance are stronger than those of customer
incivility are warranted. From a conservation of resources perspective, work passion and
social support can be considered crucial internal and external resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001;
Hobfoll and Freedy, 1993). These may alleviate the detrimental effects of job demand
(coworker incivility or customer incivility) on job performance and work engagement.
Nevertheless, such moderating effects have rarely been investigated (Sakurai and Jex, 2012).
Future studies should thus explore whether work passion (internal factor) or social support
(external factor) significantly moderates the effects of workplace incivility on the job
performance and work engagement of frontline employees.
References
Adams, G.A. and Webster, J.R. (2013), “Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal
mistreatment and distress”, European Journal of Work Organization Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 697-710.
Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. and Saks, A.M. (2015), “Employee
engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage”, Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Alola, U.V., Olugbade, O.A., Avci, T. and €
Ozt€
uren, A. (2019), “Customer incivility and employees’
outcomes in the hotel: testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion”, Tourism
Management Perspectives, Vol. 29, pp. 9-17.
Anderson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit or tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp. 452-471.
Arasli, H., Hejraty Namin, B. and Abubakar, A.M. (2018), “Workplace incivility as a moderator of the
relationships between polychronicity and job outcomes”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1245-1272.
Bakker, A.B. and Albrecht, S. (2018), “Work engagement: current trends”, Career Development
International, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Baron, R.A. and Neuman, J.H. (1996), “Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence on
their relative frequency and potential causes”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 161-173.
Baum, T., Kralj, A., Robinson, R.N.S. and Solnet, D.J. (2016), “Tourism workforce research: a review,
taxonomy and agenda”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 60, pp. 1-22.
Bonn, M.A. and Forbringer, L.S. (1992), “Reducing turnover in the hospitality industry: an overview of
recruitment, selection and retention”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 47-63.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY, pp. 71-98.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Derks, D. (2015), “Who takes the lead? A multi-source
diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-325.
Campbell, J.P., McHenry, J.J. and Wise, L.L. (1990), “Modeling job performance in a population of jobs”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 313-575.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H. and Sager, C.E. (1993), “A theory of performance”, in
Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Chen, H.-T. and Wang, C.-H. (2019), “Incivility, satisfaction, and turnover intention of tourist hotel
chefs: moderating effects of emotional intelligence”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 2034-2053.
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

12. Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and test
of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 89-136.
Cortina, L.M. (2008), “Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organization”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H. and Langhout, R.D. (2001), “Incivility in the workplace:
incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 64-80.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Douglas, S.C. and Martinko, M.J. (2001), “Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction
of workplace aggression”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 547-559.
Estes, B. and Wang, J. (2008), “Workplace incivility: impacts on individual and organizational
performance”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 218-240.
Ferguson, M. (2011), “You cannot leave it at the office: spillover and crossover of coworker incivility”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 571-588.
Glasø, L., Vie, T.L., Holmdal, G.R. and Einarsen, S. (2011), “An application of affective events theory to
workplace bullying: the role of emotions, trait anxiety, and trait anger”, European Psychologist,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 198-208.
Goh, E. and Jie, F. (2019), “To waste or not to waste: exploring motivational factors of generation Z
hospitality employees towards food wastage in the hospitality industry”, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Vol. 80, pp. 126-135.
Goh, E. and Kong, S. (2016), “Theft in the hotel workplace: exploring frontline employees’ perceptions
towards hotel employee theft”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 442-455.
Goh, E. and Lee, C. (2018), “A workforce to be reckoned with: the emerging pivotal generation Z
hospitality workforce”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 73, pp. 20-28.
Goh, E. and Okumus, F. (2020), “Avoiding the hospitality workforce bubble: strategies to attract and
retain generation Z talent in the hospitality workforce”, Tourism Management Perspectives,
Vol. 33, 100603.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Wheeler, A.R. (2008), “The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in
predicting job performance and intention to leave”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 242-256.
Han, S.J., Bonn, M.A. and Cho, M. (2016), “The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant
frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 52, pp. 97-106.
Hershcovis, M.S. (2011), “‘Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . . oh my!’: a call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 499-519.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The Influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-370.
Hobfoll, S.E. and Freedy, J. (1993), “Conservation of resources: a general stress theory applied to
burnout”, in Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C. and Marek, T. (Eds), Professional Burnout: Recent
Developments in Theory and Research, Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC, pp. 115-134.
Hsu, F., Liu, Y. and Tsaur, S. (2019), “The impact of workplace bullying on hotel employees’ well-
being: do organizational justice and friendship matter?”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1702-1719.
Hur, W.M., Moon, T. and Jun, J.K. (2016), “The effect of workplace incivility on service employee
creativity: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 302-315.
JHTI

13. Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the
mediation of work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 132-140.
Karatepe, O.M. and Aga, M. (2016), “The effects of organization mission fulfillment and perceived
organizational support on job performance: the mediating role of work engagement”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 368-387.
Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2016), “The mediating role of work engagement in the
relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in
Nigeria”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 10,
pp. 2350-2371.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivation basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 131-146.
Kim, M.-S. and Koo, D.-W. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job
performance in hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 3044-3062.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Leiter, M., Day, A. and Gilin, D. (2009), “Workplace empowerment, incivility, and
burnout: impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes”, Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 302-311.
Lazarus, R.S. (1999), Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis, Springer, New York, NY.
Lee, K., Ashton, M.C. and Shin, K.H. (2005), “Personality correlates of workplace anti-social behavior”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Lewis, P.S. and Malecha, A. (2011), “The impact of workplace incivility on the work environment,
manager skill, and productivity”, Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Li, J., Kim, W.G. and Zhao, X. (2017), “Multilevel model of management support and casino employee
turnover intention”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 193-204.
Liao, H. and Chuang, A. (2004), “A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service
performance and customer outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Lim, S. and Cortina, L.M. (2005), “Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and
impact of general incivility and sexual harassment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90
No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Lim, S. and Lee, A. (2011), “Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: does family support
help?”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 95-111.
Lim, S., Cortina, L.M. and Magley, V.J. (2008), “Personal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and
health outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 95-107.
Lugosi, P. (2019), “Deviance, deviant behaviour and hospitality management: sources, forms and
drivers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 74, pp. 81-98.
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (1997), The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal
Stress and what to Do about it, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Morrow, P.C., McElroy, J.C. and Scheibe, K.P. (2011), “Work unit incivility, job satisfaction, and total
quality management among transportation employees”, Transportation Research Part E,
Vol. 47, pp. 1210-1220.
Nadiri, H. and Tanova, C. (2010), “An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 33-41.
Nielsen, M.B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2012), “Longitudinal relationships
between workplace bullying and psychological distress”, Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance

14. Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Porath, C.L. (2000), “Assessing and attacking workplace
incivility”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 123-137.
Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Wegner, J.W. (2001), “When workers flout convention: a study of
workplace incivility”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 1387-1419.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2010), “The cost of bad behavior”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 64-71.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2012), “Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility
and the impact of hierarchical status”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. E326-E357.
Ram, Y. (2018), “Hostility or hospitality? A review on violence, bullying and sexual harassment in the
tourism and hospitality industry”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 760-774.
Reynolds, W.M. (1982), “Development of reliable and valid short forms of the marlowe-crowne social
desirability scale”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 119-125.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J. (1995), “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a
multidimensional scaling study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 555-572.
Robinson, S.L. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), “Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups
on the antisocial behavior of employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 658-672.
Robinson, S.L., Wang, W. and Kiewitz, C. (2014), “Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworker
deviant behavior upon individual employees”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 123-143.
Sakurai, K. and Jex, S.M. (2012), “Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and
counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor social support”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 150-161.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peir
o, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-1227.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25,
pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonz
alez-rom
a, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I.E. and Erez, A. (2016), “Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and
agenda for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. S1, pp. S57-S88.
Shin, Y., Hur, W.-M. and Choi, W.-H. (2020), “Coworker support as a double-edged sword: a moderated
mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance”, International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1417-1438.
Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K. and McInnerney, J. (2010), “How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator
between customer incivility and employee outcomes”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 468-481.
Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a punching bag: the effect of multiple sources
of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 121-139.
Torres, E.N., van Niekerk, M. and Orlowski, M. (2017), “Customer and employee incivility and its
causal effects in the hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 48-66.
JHTI

15. van Jaarsveld, D.D., Walker, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2010), “The role of job demands and emotional
exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1486-1504.
Walker, D.D., van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2014), “Exploring the effects of individual
customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: the moderating roles of entity (in)civility
and negative affectivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 151-161.
Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), “Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of performance and
voluntary turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 486-493.
Yang, L.Q., Spector, P.E., Gallant-Roman, M. and Powell, J. (2012), “Psychosocial precursors and
physical consequences of workplace violence towards nurses: a longitudinal examination with
naturally occurring groups in hospital settings”, International Journal of Nursing Studies,
Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1091-1102.
Yen, C.-H. and Teng, H.-Y. (2013), “The effect of centralization on organizational citizenship behavior
and deviant workplace behavior in the hospitality industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 36,
pp. 401-410.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Corresponding author
Chih-Hung Wang can be contacted at: chwang@mail.ntcu.edu.tw
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Workplace
incivility,
engagement,
andperformance