Episodes of incivility between subordinates and supervisors: examining the role of self‐control and time with an interaction‐record diary study

• Author: Sven Gross,Laurenz L. Meier
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2013

Episodes of incivility between subordinates and

supervisors: examining the role of self-control and

time with an interaction-record diary study

LAURENZ L. MEIER

1

*AND SVEN GROSS

2

1

Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

2

Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Summary Scholars have hypothesized that experiencing incivility not only negatively affects well-being, but may even

trigger further antisocial behavior. Previous research, however, has focused mainly on the relation between

incivility and well-being. Thus, little is known about the behavioral consequences of incivility. With this in

mind, we conducted an interaction-record diary study to examine whether supervisor incivility causes retal-

iatory incivility against the supervisor. Using the self-control strength model as a framework, we further ex-

amined whether the target’s trait (trait self-control) and state (exhaustion) self-regulatory capacities moderate

this effect. In addition, we examined the role of time by testing the duration of the effect. When we analyzed

the full data set, we found no support for our hypotheses. However, using a subset of the data in which the

subsequent interaction happened on the same day as the prior interaction, our results showed that experienc-

ing incivility predicted incivility in the subsequent interaction, but only when the time lag between the two

interactions was short. Furthermore, in line with the assumption that self-regulatory capacities are required

to restrain a target from retaliatory responses, the effect was stronger when individuals were exhausted. In

contrast to our assumption, trait self-control had no effect on instigated incivility. Copyright © 2015 John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: incivility; self-control; exhaustion; interaction records; diary study

Workplace incivility harms employees and organizations (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Most previous studies have

examined the effect of incivility on employees’well-being, yielding goodevidence that incivility is related toimpaired

health (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Relatively little, however, is known about how it affects

behavior relevant to the organization. For example, the assumption that experienced incivility will lead to retaliation

and may trigger an incivility spiral (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) has barely been tested despite its theoretical and

practical importance.

Episodes of incivility have been conceptualized from a social interaction perspective, depicting changes in uncivil

behavior between two or more parties as an ongoing process (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). However, the large

majority of research focused on the long-term experience of incivility across many interactions (e.g., during

the past 5 years, see Cortina et al., 2001; for exceptions, see Taylor, Bedeian, Cole, & Zhang, 2014; Zhou,

Yan, Che, & Meier, 2015) using cross-sectional designs. As a result, most studies did not directly address the

theory that incivility is a process rather than an event, and little knowledge exists about the evolution of episodes

of incivility.

With this in mind, we examined the effect of experienced incivility on subsequent instigated incivility with an

interaction-record diary study. To scrutinize potential boundary conditions, we tested the moderating role of

employees’self-regulatory capacities and the duration of the effect.

*Correspondence to: Laurenz L. Meier, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.

E-mail: laurenz.meier@unifr.ch

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 7 March 2014

Revised 16 March 2015, Accepted 28 March 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1096–1113 (2015)

Published online 28 April 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2013

Research Article

Our research makes three key contributionsto the literature.First, we advance the understanding of the detrimental

effects of workplace incivility by testing the exchange process proposed by Andersson and Pearson (1999). As noted,

previous research has focused on the chronic experience of incivility (or other forms of chronic mistreatment such as

abusive supervision) and, hence, has been restricted to long-term effects. Thus, evidence is lacking to support the

theory that specificevents of experienced incivility may trigger retaliation in subsequent events (Andersson& Pearson,

1999). Demonstrating such incivility episodes within a dyad would be the first direct support for incivility spirals and,

hence, would inform theory about the origin of workplace incivility.

Second, we extend our knowledge about the role of self-control in antisocial behavior at work. Previous

research primarily examined stable inter-individual differences in self-regulatory capacities (Lian et al., 2014;

Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Restubog, Zagenczyk, Bordia, Bordia, & Chapman, 2012). However, self-control

strength is unfixed and may fluctuate from day to day. We therefore tested the role of both dispositional, stable

(trait self-control) and situational, fluctuating (state exhaustion) indicators of self-regulatory capacities. As a result,

the current study provides a more holistic picture of the role of self-control in retaliatory antisocial behavior at

work.

Third, we respond to the call to study the temporal dynamics in organizational research (e.g., George & Jones,

2000; Sonnentag, 2012) by examining the role of time in the relationship between experienced and instigated inci-

vility. In general, minimal time is needed for an effect to unfold, and an effect should diminish when the time lag

becomes longer (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Therefore, the effect of experienced incivility is likely to vary as a func-

tion of the time lag between interactions. An in-depth understanding of this temporal dynamic is essential for several

reasons. In terms of theory, knowledge about the duration of the effect of experienced incivility on a target’s behav-

ior informs us about the boundary conditions of retaliation and helps us to understand the development of incivility

spirals. In research terms, such understanding guides us in choosing the optimal time lag to study incivility episodes.

And in practical terms, insights into how long experienced incivility has a detrimental impact on employee behavior

may help us to design interventions to cope with workplace incivility.

In this study, we focused on incivility experienced from and targeted against a supervisor. Supervisors are

frequently sources of incivility (e.g., Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Porath & Pearson, 2012). Subordinates generally

hesitate to retaliate against supervisors because of the power differential, which may result in punishment and

counter-retaliation (e.g., Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001). Thus, retaliation using overt incivility against the superviso r

ought to be unlikely. However, supervisor-targeted incivility and aggression are not uncommon (e.g., Baron,

Neuman, & Geddes, 1999; Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005). A possible reason for such risky behavior might be

the subordinate’s limited self-regulatory capacities (e.g., Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Therefore, interaction

cycles between a supervisor and a subordinate are an interesting setting in which to test the self-control strength

model in the organizational context.

Workplace Incivility

Incivility refers to low-intensity antisocial behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target (Andersson & Pearson,

1999). It reflects a breach of norms and signals disrespect and thus is perceived as rude and unfair. Incivility overlaps

conceptually with other forms of interpersonal mistreatment, such as social undermining, bullying, and abusive

supervision (e.g.,Hershcovis, 2011). According to Spector and Fox (2005), incivility is the mildest of these behaviors;

examples of incivility include ignoring someone’s greeting and not crediting work performed by others (Pearson,

Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). Compared with other forms, like sabotage and bullying, the intent to harm not need

exist, and the behavior need not be repetitive (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001). The power

differential between supervisors and subordinates suggests that subordinates are more likely to retaliate against

supervisors with uncivil behavior than with more aggressive and persistent forms of mistreatment. As a result, the

incivility construct seems well-suited for the present study.

EPISODES OF INCIVILITY 1097

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1096–1113 (2015)

DOI: 10.1002/job