Content uploaded by Fatemeh Taheri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fatemeh Taheri on Jul 07, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Subjective well-being in the
relationship between workaholism
and workplace incivility:
the moderating role of gender
Fatemeh Taheri, Nahid Naderibeni and Azam Mirzamani
University of Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this article is to investigate the mediating role of subjective well-being (SWB) in the
relationship workaholism and workplace incivility with an emphasis on the moderating role of gender.
Design/methodology/approach –Using an online survey, the required data were collected from 401
employees in 41 public organizations in Iran.
Findings –By structural equation modeling, the results showed workaholism has a negative direct
association with workplace incivility. Additionally, SWB mediates the relationships between workaholism and
workplace incivility. Moreover, workaholic men and women are more likely to experience higher workplace
incivility and lower SWB, respectively.
Practical implications –Managers should focus on reducing workaholism and developing SWB to decrease
uncivil behaviors. Researchers need to assess the different instigators of incivility, considering themediating or
moderating role of other variables in private organizations.
Social implications –The stress of workaholism, coupled with the harsh conditions of economic sanctions in
Iran, has exacerbated the occurrence of incivility behavior. This study helps to reduce and control such
behaviors by examining the role of SWB and gender.
Originality/value –The study contributes to the research on incivility behavior by advancing the
understanding of organizational and personal factors (workaholism and SWB) that can influence workplace
incivility among employees. It also addresses the usefulness of examining SWB disposition in understanding
the relationship between workaholism and workplace incivility.
Keywords Workplace incivility, Workaholism, Subjective well-being, Gender, Stress
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Most research on mistreatment in the workplace (Neuman and Baron, 1997;Barling et al.,
2009;Rosen et al., 2021) has focused on the active, direct and physical types of hostile
behaviors occurring in work settings. These behaviors include counterproductive work
behaviors (CWBs) (Ones, 2002), bullying (Leymann, 1996;McAvoy and Murtagh, 2003;Salin,
2021), emotional abuse (Keashly, 1997;Balducci et al., 2021), abusive supervision (Tepper,
2007;Yu et al., 2020), social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002;Sarwar et al., 2020), violence and
aggression (Baron and Neuman, 1996;Ashton et al., 2018). But more recently, researchers
have become interested in more subtle forms of maltreatment such as rude and disrespectful
behaviors (Dipboye and Halverson, 2004;Cortina, 2008;Jones et al., 2016). One type of these
behaviors is workplace incivility, which is defined as workplace behavior that violates norms
for mutual respect. It is characteristically rude and discourteous, and conveys absence of
regard for others (Andersson and Pearson, 1999).
Pearson et al. (2000) believe that although overt or direct violence and aggression can be
dangerous and should be controlled, incivility appears daily and at a much higher rate. They
refer to a national poll outcome in which 90% of the respondents felt incivility and had severe
problem in the workplace. The current study addresses workplace incivility, as a “milder”
form of interpersonal mistreatment in which intentionality is less apparent.
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
43
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2051-6614.htm
Received 30 November 2021
Revised 28 June 2022
Accepted 21 July 2022
Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and
Performance
Vol. 10 No. 1, 2023
pp. 43-59
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2051-6614
DOI 10.1108/JOEPP-10-2021-0284
Unlike other antisocial work behaviors like harassment or sabotage, incivility typically
does not warrant legal attention. Yet because of the lack of sanctions, organizations might
often dismiss incivility as temporary and trivial conduct that merits no intervention (Lim
et al., 2008). These conditions cause wide gap in terms of why certain people are more inclined
to show uncivil behaviors. Lanzo et al. (2016) found that workaholism is the primary
antecedent of incivility. The term “workaholism”refers to “the compulsion or the
uncontrollable need to work incessantly”(Oates, 1968). Workaholics work beyond what is
reasonably hoped to reach organizational or economic demands (Taris et al., 2010).
The opinions, observations, and conclusions about workaholism are both varied and
conflicting. The Workaholism Battery (WorkBat; Spence and Robbins, 1992) and the Work
Addiction Risk Test (WART; Robinson, 1999), as two first most widely applied measures of
workaholism, considered as the positive nature of workaholism (with components such as work
involvement, work drive, and work enjoyment) (McMillan et al.,2003), while recent studies view
workaholics negatively, depict them as unhappy and obsessive people who are not performing
their jobs well and are creating difficulties for their co-workers. In their view, workaholism
reflects low(er) levels of pleasure and a high level of activation regarding work. Bakker and
Oerlemans (2011) describe it as the negative form of work-related SWB, which will lead to
agitated, hostile, irritated, angry and tense situations in the behavior of individuals in the
workplace. Also Aziz et al. (2013) conceptualized workaholism as an addiction characterized by
an intense work drive that leads to the neglect of other interests and negative consequences.
With regard to Aziz’s conceptualization of workaholism, there are strong theoretical
reasons for a relationship between workaholism and workplace incivility. Firstly, workaholic’s
emotional reactivity, low self-regulative capacity and high hot temperament (Andersson and
Pearson, 1999) are risk factors for engaging them in workplace incivility (e.g. Barling et al.,
2009). Furthermore, studies have shown that high arousal negative emotions (i.e. anger and
anxiety) are immediate antecedents of uncivility (Balducci et al., 2011;Spector and Fox, 2005).
On the other hand, a similar process is likely to operate in the case of workaholism and
SWB. By definition, workaholics spend an excessive amount of time on their work such that
they have insufficient opportunity to recover from their excessive efforts (Schaufeli et al.,
2009a,b), leaving them emotionally or cognitively exhausted over time (Taris et al., 2005).
Various studies have shown that workaholism is negatively related to experienced health
(Buelens and Poelmans, 2004;Schaufeli et al., 2006a,b), happiness, SWB (Burke and Koksal,
2002;Schaufeli et al., 2006a,b) and job satisfaction (Aziz and Zickar, 2006).
Overall, the central aim of this paper is to expand on what is currently known of
workaholism by examining its relationship with organizational-personal outcomes.
Specifically, we focus on its relationship with SWB and workplace incivility. For this
purpose, we first replicate previous findings by linking workaholism to incivility and SWB.
Then we add to the literature by exploring a model (see Figure 1) combining workaholism,
Workaholism
Workplace Incivility
Subjective
Well being
Gender
H3–
H2–
H1 +
H4b
H4a
Figure 1.
The conceptual model
JOEPP
10,1
44
SWB and workplace incivility. Finally, we propose that SWB acts as mediator. By this, we
attempt to fill a gap in the incivility research by focusing on who is more prone to be uncivil
(workaholics) and why (SWB). An overview of each construct is discussed in the following
sections.
2. Workplace incivility overview
Workplace incivility is defined as “low-intensity, disrespectful or rude deviant workplace
behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target and is in violation of workplace norms
for mutual respect”(Andersson and Pearson, 1999, p. 457). In other words, workplace
incivility is the “exchange of seemingly inconsequential words and deeds that violate
conventional norms of workplace conduct”(Pearson and Porath, 2009, p. 21). Uncivil
behaviors are characteristically impolite and discourteous, posing a lack of respect or regard
for others. Examples of some of these rude behaviors include not saying “please”or “thank
you”, general gossip, rolling one’s eyes at co-workers’suggestions, texting or emailing during
meetings, making derogatory comments, and ignoring or insulting colleagues (Johnson and
Indvik, 2001;Pearson and Porath, 2009). Ambiguity is an important element in the definition
of incivility. It does not need to be the intention of the perpetrator to deliberately cause
discomfort or distress in those affected. In fact, the violation of workplace norms could
reasonably be presumed to be the result of perpetrator ignorance (not knowing what effect
the behavior would have), or of misunderstanding or extreme sensitivity by the target
(Andersson and Pearson, 1999). One of the greatest challenges to incivility is that it is not an
objective occurrence; rather, it depends on the subjective interpretation of actions, and how
some of these “ambiguous intents”make individuals feel. Depending on the participants and
the contexts, these incivilities may be perceived as intentionally offensive or not.
Incivility has negative impacts on those who receive uncivil behavior or who directly
experience it at work (Montgomery et al., 2004). Accordingly, Andersson and Pearson (1999)
portray an “incivility spiral”, which includes witnessing interpersonal incivility. Hence, it is
important to search for the causes of workplace incivility. Some researchers have looked at
the individual (e.g. anger and narcissism-marked by feelings of nervousness, worrying and
insecurity (Milam et al., 2009), work exhaustion and job dissatisfaction (Blau and Andersson,
2005), gender differences (Kabat Farr and Cortina, 2012;Loi et al., 2015), status (Porath and
Pearson, 2012)) and organizational antecedents (e.g. structural empowerment (Smith et al.,
2010) and distributive injustice (Blau and Andersson, 2005)) as contributory factors to
workplace incivility. However, in this paper, we argue that workaholism is one of the most
important antecedents of workplace incivility.
3. Workaholism overview and incivility
The term “workaholism”was first coined by psychologist and Minister Oates (1971).He
defined workaholism as “addiction to work, the compulsion or uncontrollable need to work
incessantly”(p. 11). Since then, workaholism has been described in a variety of different ways:
as an addiction to work (Ng et al., 2007), a pathology (Fassel, 1990), a behavior pattern that
persists across multiple organizational settings (Scottl et al., 1997), and a syndrome
characterized by high work involvement, high drive, and low work enjoyment (Aziz and
Zickar, 2006). So this construct has not reached univocal definitions yet, even if there is
substantial agreement in thinking that it should be conceived as more than overworking
(Spence and Robbins, 1992;Harpaz and Snir, 2003;Aziz and Tronzo, 2011;Sussman, 2012).
Some argue that workaholism is associated with positive outcomes such as job satisfaction,
experiencing a high level of eustress (pleasant stress) and high performance (Baruch, 2011),
while re-conceptualizing workaholism, causing hard workers creates with severe stress and
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
45
negative emotions (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2011;Aziz et al., 2013). From this view point,
workaholism is similar in some domains but differs most notably in work enthusiasm
(associated with the “liking”aspect of passion for work). Workaholics are typically low on
work enjoyment; they are not mere hard workers, but are characterized by a combination of
long work hours, intrinsic work motivation, and “emotional rushes”from working hard
(Bonebright et al., 2000). Furthermore, they confront negative social outcomes like life-work
conflict, difficulties maintaining close relationships, poor emotional adjustment, and marital
conflict (Clark et al., 2016). Such work–life imbalance makes them more prone to exhibit
nervousness, irritability, impatience and self-neglect (Robinson, 1998). Eventually, these
deleterious consequences influence their general psychological and physical health (Clark
et al., 2016).
Alternately, workaholics may view coworkers as competitors, which can cause negative
interactions and the propensity to partake in CWBs, especially toward those coworkers
whom they view as competitors (Porter, 1996). It makes them inclined to exhibit CWBs. Two
recent studies have linked workaholic characteristics to aggressive or uncivil behaviors.
Balducci et al. (2012) found that workaholism (measured in terms of working compulsively
and excessively) was related to aggressive behavior. Birkeland and Nerstad (2016) reported
that obsessive passion for work was related to increased instigation of incivility. In the
current study, we extend these preliminary findings. As such, the following hypothesis was
adopted:
H1. Workaholism is positively related to workplace incivility.
4. The mediating role of subjective well-being
Subjective well-being is an evaluation of life circumstances, including cognitive assessment
of satisfaction with life and the frequency of experiencing positive and negative affects
(Diener et al., 1999). An employee can be said to have low work-related well-being when he/she
is unsatisfied with his/her job, is experiencing positive emotions infrequently, and is
experiencing negative emotions frequently in work contexts (Bakker and Oerlemans, 2011).
This situation can be affected by workaholism, as addiction-like behavior with diverse
negative consequences (Bakker et al., 2008). Workaholics suffer from many problems, which
may bring about both personal and occupational consequences, such as high perceived
stress, difficulties in sleeping, career dissatisfaction, and poor performance (Andreassen et al.,
2011;Graves et al., 2012;Kubota et al., 2010;Sussman, 2012). In addition, they persistently and
frequently think about work when they are not at work (Taris et al., 2005), which may result in
sympathetic arousal and emotional distress. Workaholics’excessive tendency to work leaves
little possibility for leisure and recovery from work, allowing for the accumulation of a great
deal of stress (Sonnentag and Zijlstra, 2006). Unsurprisingly then, workaholism has largely
been associated with negative personal outcomes like greater work–home conflict (Aziz and
Cunningham, 2008;Del Libano et al., 2012), poor job satisfaction (Del Libano et al., 2012), and
more generally, poor life satisfaction (Bonebright et al., 2000). Relevant to the present work is
the abundance of research that has linked workaholism to the feeling of burnout (Burke et al.,
2004;Kravina et al., 2010). Consequently, workaholism is associated with diminished sleep
quality (Kubota et al., 2010), poor physical health (Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009), and impaired
psychological health (e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2008;Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009). All these can
have negative affects on one’s general health and reduce SWB.
It has been shown that experiencing negative affects at work appears to be a key factor in
predicting incivility within the workplace. Ogungbamila (2013) reported that individuals with
negative affects toward their jobs are more likely to act uncivilly. Also Ghosh et al. (2011)
suggested that subordinates with negative emotions toward their supervisors or mentors are
JOEPP
10,1
46
more likely to act uncivilly. In general, experiencing negative emotions is associated with
both receiving and behaving incivility. One explanation for the relationship between
experiencing negative emotions and acting uncivilly is the idea that negative emotions are at
the core of stress experience (Ogungbamila, 2013;Lazarus, 1993). Holding negative emotions
by employees may act as the trigger for their engagement in uncivil behaviors (Spector and
Fox, 2005).
H2. Workaholism is negatively related to SWB.
H3. SWB is negatively related to workplace incivility.
H4. SWB mediates the relationship between workaholism and workplace incivility.
It is noteworthy that most of the studies (Laschinger et al., 2013;Volk et al., 2016;Vuolo, 2018)
have focused on the impact of incivility on SWB and have neglected to examine the
relationship between SWB and incivility. This study, as one of the first attempts, examines
the impact of SWB on workplace incivility as a mediating variable.
5. The moderating role of gender
Although gender was not found to be a significant predictor of incivility in this study, it
appears there is a gender difference in instigated incivility among men and women. For
example, Cortina et al. (2001) and Reio and Ghosh (2009) reported that men are more likely to
engage in both interpersonal and organizational incivility than women. One of the reasons
why men are more involved in the workplace incivility can be related to social power theory
(SPT). This theory speculates that workplace incivility may operate as a means of asserting
power (Cortina et al., 2001). Social power is defined as the measure of influence an individual is
able to assert over other people or outcomes (French et al., 1959).
According to this theory, society assigns greater power on particular individuals through
social norms and expectations. Pearson and Porath (2005) showed that those with greater
power are more likely to be the instigators of incivility than those with lesser power. Who has
power and who does not can be segmented along social gender roles. In masculine societies
like Iran (Hofstede, 1980;Cray et al., 2019), social gender roles provide the basis on which
gender stereotypes are formed: men as authoritative figures and women as submissive
figures. Through this process, gender itself becomes an organizing principle in hierarchies
and authority. Empirical research provides support for such an argument. For example, Carli
(1999) reported that compared to men, women in the workplace do not receive the same pay or
promotions entitled to them. If women are incapable to attain these benefits, they are in no
position to shape outcomes, command respect, or be as deserving of status as men. Salin
(2003, p. 1219) believes that a “perceived power imbalance is a prerequisite for bullying to
occur”, as a result of traditional gender stereotyping.
Gender may moderate the relationship between workaholism and SWB, too. According to
Blair-Loy’s (2009) cultural schemas of work and family devotion, men’s serious investment in
work is more socially believable than women’s devotion to work because it is in line with the
male as breadwinner stereotype. As men seek to obtain this worker ideal, meta-analytic
evidence proposes samples with higher proportions of men to exhibit a stronger relationship
between workaholism and physical health outcomes as compared to women. On the other
hand, these work and family devotion schemas may suggest that workaholic women
experience greater negative psychological outcomes (e.g. burnout) than workaholic men as
their heavy investment in work conflicts with female gender role expectations to assign
themselves only to their family role.
Also there is some evidence that females show higher levels of anxiety, depression and
negative affect than do men (Avison and McAlpine, 1992;Joiner and Blalock, 1995). For
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
47
example, Spence and Robbins (1992) compared men and women social workers in academic
positions on their workaholism triad (work enjoyment, feeling driven to work, and work
involvement), behavioral correlates (e.g. non-delegation, perfectionism) and health
complaints. The findings showed women scored significantly higher than men on feeling
driven to work, work enjoyment, job stress, job involvement and time commitment scales.
They also reported more health complaints. Burke (1999), using measures offered by Spence
and Robbins (1992), investigated gender differences on the three workaholism components
and workaholic job behaviors among managers and professionals. The results showed
Females reported higher levels of particular workaholic job behaviors (e.g. perfectionism, job
stress) likely to be associated with lower levels of well-being and satisfaction. ; Burgess et al.
(2006) examined gender differences in three workaholism components, workaholic job
behaviors and well-being consequences among 324 female and 134 male MA and PhD level
Australian psychologists. Females and males were found to vary on several personal and
situational demographic characters, two of three workaholism components (work
involvement, and feeling driven to work) with males scoring higher. Females however
reported higher levels of particular workaholic job behaviors (e.g. perfectionism, job stress)
likely to be associated with lower levels of satisfaction and well-being.
Thus, workaholic women’s competing work and family demands, gender role
expectations and more stress in women than men leads to more negative emotions, may
lead them to experience greater negative well-being consequences than men workaholics.
H5. Gender will moderate the relationship between (a) workaholism and workplace
incivility, (b) workaholism and SWB.
The relationship between the variables of research based on what has been described so far is
shown in Figure 1.
6. The methodology
6.1 Participants and procedures
The statistical population of this research consisted of all employees of 41 public
organizations of Qom Provenience in Iran (N523, 949, including 14,093 men and 9,856
women). According to Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) Table, 377 people were estimated to the
research population; however, we distributed 600 questionnaires to reach the adequacy of the
sample. According to the number of employees and their ratio in the respected organizations,
5–40 questionnaires were sent by random sampling. Participants were recruited through
network contacts via e-mail, in which the study purpose was described and participation
guidelines were explained. The e-mail detailed the participation requirements, an overview of
the topic, the time commitment necessary to complete the survey, and a hyperlink to the
survey itself. Individuals who chose to participate were provided with an informed consent
form, assuring them that the survey completion was voluntary and the responses would be
kept confidential and anonymous. A total of 401 questionnaires were received (Response rate
67%). As the most crowded categories, 56% of the sample number had a master’s degree,
57% were under 41 years old, and men consisted of about 55% of the sample (Table 1).
6.2 Measures
6.2.1 Uncivil workplace behaviors. The 20-item Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire-
Revised (UWBQ-R) (Martin and Hine, 2005) was used to measure uncivil workplace behaviors
among the research participants. This measure includes the four components of Hostility,
Privacy invasion, Exclusionary behavior, and Gossiping. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of uncivil workplace behaviors.
JOEPP
10,1
48
6.2.2 Workaholism. The 29-item Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ) (Aziz et al.,
2013) was used to measure workaholism. It includes five components of Work-life conflict,
Work perfectionism, Work addiction, Unpleasantness, and Withdrawal symptoms. Higher
scores indicate higher levels of workaholism.
6.2.3 Subjective well-being (SWB). SWB was assessed by two measures:
(1) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS): The cognitive dimension of SWB was assessed
with the four-item satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al., 1985). The participants
were asked to respond to what extent they agreed with the items (e.g. “I am satisfied
with my life”,“In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”, and “If I could live my life
over, I would change almost nothing”). The final score was the mean of the four items’
scores, with higher scores representing higher satisfaction with life.
(2) Positive and negative affects: The affective aspects of SWB were measured with the 8-
item positive and negative affect schedule (Table 4). SWB measurement was adopted
from the work of Lonnqvist and große Deters (2016).
7. Data analysis and hypothesis test
7.1 Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 18 software was used to identify the convergent
validity of workplace incivility, workaholism and SWB models. As recommended by Xia and
Yang (2019), the overall model’s chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to assess
the model fit. To indicate a good fit, CFI and TLI should be above 0.90, and RMSEA should be
between 0.05 and 0.08. Although the Chi-square test of the hypothesized model was
significant, a relative/normed Chi-square (
χ
2
/df) has been recommended as an alternative test,
with a ratio of less than 3, indicating acceptable fit.
In this study, the fit indexes of workplace incivility (CFI 50.922, TLI 50.911,
RMSEA 50.067, x
2
/df 52.81), workaholism (CFI 50.915, TLI 50.907, RMSEA 50.061,
x
2
/df 52.48) and SWB (CFI 50.964, TLI 50.951, RMSEA 50.055, x
2
/df 52.20) confirm the
fit indicators of the models.
7.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations of variables
Mean, standard deviation and relationships between the variables show that workaholism is
positively (0.63) related to workplace incivility (p< 0.01), while workplace incivility (0.43)
and workaholism (0.33) are negatively associated with SWB (p< 0.01) (Table 1).
Variables Mean SD 123456
1-Education 1.56 0.50 1
2-Age 36.00 11.43 0.29** 1
3-Gender (1 5male,
25female)
1.45 0.50 0.15** 0.26** 1
4-Workplace incivility 3.78 0.58 0.03 0.03 0.20** 1
5-Workaholism 3.94 0.60 0.10* 0.37** 0.05 0.63** 1
6-Subjective well-being (SWB) 2.29 0.51 0.001 0.04 0.06 0.43** 0.33** 1
Note(s): N5401; SD 5Standard Deviation; *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01
Table 1.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlations of the
study variables
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
49
The relationship of the study variables with education, age and gender is shown in
Table 1, too. For example, workaholism and workplace incivility have negative relationship
with age (0.37) and gender (0.20), respectively (p< 0.05).
Independent t-test was used to determine the difference between workaholism, workplace
incivility and subjective well-being in men and women (Table 2). The results showed that
workaholism was not significantly different between men and women (p> 0.05), but the mean
of workplace incivility and SWB was significantly higher in men (t52.25, p50.025) than
women (t52.06, p50.04).
7.3 Testing the hypotheses
7.3.1 Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4. According to the results of testing the hypotheses (Table 3)
thepositiverelationshipbetweenworkaholism and workplace incivility (H1)(Z50.794,
p< 0.01), and the negative relationship between workaholism and subjective well-being
Variables Group Mean Sig T-value Result
Workplace Incivility Male 3.84 0.025 2.25 Significant difference
Female 3.71
Workaholism Male 3.92 0.442 0.770 No significant difference
Female 3.97
SWB Male 2.33 0.040 2.06 Significant difference
Female 2.23
Hypotheses p-value C.R
Direct
effect Indirect effect
Total
effect Result
H1 and H4 Workaholism →
Workplace
incivility
0.000 10.747 0.794 0.117
(T55.36,
p50.000)
0.911 Supported
H2 Workaholism →
SWB
0.000 7.534 0.433 - 0.433 Supported
H3 SWB →Workplace
incivility
0.000 7.639 0.270 - 0.270 Supported
Note(s): CFI: 0.905, TLI: 0.900, RMSEA: 0.043,
χ
2
/df 51.73
Hypotheses
Independent
variables
Dependent
variables
Gender
groups BBSE βSig Result
5a Workaholism Workplace
incivility
Male 0.87 0.03 0.88 0.000 Supported
Workaholism Workplace
incivility
Female 0.70 0.04 0.76 0.000
Workaholism Workplace
incivility
Total 0.72 0.07 0.79 0.000
5b Workaholism SWB Male 0.59 0.04 0.67 0.000 Supported
Workaholism SWB Female 0.32 0.05 0.40 0.000
Workaholism SWB Total 0.84 0.11 0.43 0.000
Table 2.
The mean of research
variables between men
and women
Table 3.
Test of hypotheses 1, 2,
3 and 4
Table 4.
Hypotheses 5a and 5b
testing with multiple
regression analyzes
JOEPP
10,1
50
(H2)(Z50.433, p< 0.01) and also between subjective well-being and workplace incivility
(H3)(Z50.27, p<0.01)wereconfirmed.
Moreover, the Sobel test was significant (Direct effect 50.794, Indirect effect 50.117,
p50.000). Thus, the relationship between workaholism and workplace incivility was
partially mediated by the SWB and so H4 was confirmed (Table 3).
7.3.2 Moderation analysis. Multiple regression analysis was used to test hypotheses 5a
and 5b (Table 4).
7.3.3 Hypothesis 5a. As shown in Table 4, the relationship between workaholism and
workplace incivility is statistically significant for the statistical sample (β50.79, p< 0.05).
The relationship between these two variables was estimated to be 0.76 for women (the
relationship decreased to the total relationship) and 0.88 for men (the relationship increased to
the total relationship). Also the slope of the graph shows a stronger positive relationship in
men than in women (Figure 2) (confirmation of Hypothesis 5a).
7.3.4 Hypothesis 5b. As shown in Table 4, the relationship between workaholism and SWB
is statistically significant for the statistical sample (β50.43, p< 0.05). The relationship
between these two variables was estimated to be 0.40 for women (the relationship decreased
to the total relationship) and 0.67 for men (the relationship increased to the total
relationship). Also the slope of the graph shows a stronger negative relationship in women
comparing to men (Figure 3) (confirmation of Hypothesis 5b).
8. Discussion
The central objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between workaholism
and workplace incivility, especially considering the mediating role of SWB. The results can
help to examine the causes of workplace incivility in the workplace. Without clear
information about the source of incivility, managers are less likely to be able to control it.
We used a recent conceptualization of workaholism and explored the mechanism through
which workaholism relates to incivility. Therefore, our primary aim was to fill a gap in the
workplace incivility research by investigating who is more prone to engage in uncivil
behaviors and why, considering the moderating role of gender.
Figure 2.
The moderating effect
of gender on the
relation between
workaholism and
workplace incivility
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
51
As expected, it was realized that employees who had a higher score in workaholism were
more likely to report higher levels of incivility. This is in line with past studies. Lanzo et al.
(2016) showed that workaholism by creating higher levels of stress leads to an increase in
indecent behaviors. A study by Birkeland and Nerstad (2016) connected instigating incivility
to an alternate conceptualization of workaholism, too.
The negative impact of workaholism on SWB was also confirmed providing support to
H2. Similarly, previous considerable evidence has revealed workaholism to be associated
with poorer general well-being (Schou Andreassen et al., 2007;Schaufeli et al., 2009a,b) and
greater psychological strain (Burke and Fiksenbaum, 2009;Shimazu et al., 2012). In this
regard, some researchers suggest that workaholism is associated with greater burnout and
strain because workaholics perceive greater demands from work, and not necessarily
because of actual amount of work they experience (Lee and Ashforth, 1996). In other words,
workaholics perceive their work as requiring higher standards of performance, such as
greater speed; in turn, these demand perceptions may drive negative outcomes such as
burnout and strain.
The approval of hypothesis 3 is consistent with the results of Ogungbamila (2013) and
Ghosh et al. (2011). They showed that experiencing negative emotions was associated with
both receiving and instigating incivility. Stress is one of the key factors in the formation of
these counterproductive behaviors (Ogungbamila, 2013;Lazarus, 1993).
Finally, the present research results showed that gender difference moderates two
mentioned relationships; workaholic men experience greater incivility than workaholic
women, and workaholic women experience lower SWB than workaholic men, providing
support for hypotheses 5a and 5b, respectively. These findings are consistent with the results
obtained by Blair-Loy’s (2009),Avison and McAlpine (1992),Joiner and Blalock (1995),Burke
(1999), and Burgess et al. (2006).
In addition, Cortina et al. (2001) found that 65% of women compared to 47% of men
experienced “general incivility”in their workplace. This recalls research conducted in the
1990s by Bj€
orkqvist et al. (1994), who reported that 55% of female employees compared to
30% of male employees experienced harassment at work (Cortina et al., 2013;Pearson and
Porath, 2009). As discussed earlier, based on the social power theory (SPT), in masculine
societies perceived power imbalance is a prerequisite for incivility to occur. Iran as a
masculine country (Cray et al., 2019), has a weak good relationship, cooperation and
Figure 3.
The moderating effect
of gender on the
relation between
workaholism and
subjective well-being
JOEPP
10,1
52
employment security over earnings, recognition and challenging work in organizations
(Hofstede, 2001). This makes men more likely to exhibit incivility behavior.
According to Porath et al. (2008), men show more uncivil behavior because this may reflect
their greater sensitivity to status contest. Other research results suggest that men’s direct and
overt responses may be the result of their sensitivity to identity threats with the idea being
that the masculine identity of a man is associated with status, toughness, and courage
(Felson, 1982;Frodi et al., 1977). Therefore, it is within a man’s legitimate right to retaliate
aggressively when under attack. In the workplace, men are more likely than women to use
indirect aggression (Archer and Coyne, 2005) such as work withdrawal. Women, on the other
hand, have been socialized to master their anger because active self-defense is seen as anti-
social and uncivilized.
In some societies, another plausible reason as to why women may be less likely than men
to engage in deviant workplace behaviors is the need to retain the financial security their jobs
provide them. Statistical evidence supports this argument and reports that Australian
women, for instance, want more, not less, working hours (Statistics, 2011), the issue that has
not yet been studied in many countries, including Iran and further studies are needed. Of
course, the approval of hypothesis 5a is inconsistent with the results of Pearson and Porath
(2005). They found that men and women were both equally likely to be engaged in workplace
incivility.
9. Practical implications for managerial practices and future research
Many organizations ignore incivility as an inevitable problem; however, research on its
consequences proves otherwise. The first step in limiting such negative influences on the
organization is to determine the antecedents of incivility, specifically, among these
employees that are likely to engage in these behaviors and why. There are likely many
“types”of employees who engage in uncivil behaviors; however, we focused on
workaholism because a growing amount of the workforce falls into this category. The
findings of this study have valuable practical implications for managers and practitioners
because they provide new understanding concerning the consequences of workaholism on
workplace incivility.
Due to the significant impact of workaholism on employee’s SWB and workplace
incivility, on the basis of this study, training behavioral adjustment skills, work–life balance,
and positive emotions can be effective for reducing workaholic behaviors. For employees who
are at risk for workaholism, training programs, which focus on time management and
problem solving skills, might be helpful because workaholics take more work than they can
handle and accept new tasks before completing previous ones (Van Wijhe et al., 2011).
Also, since based on previous studies and the findings of this study, women are more
prone to stress, negative emotions and mental well-being than men (Avison and McAlpine,
1992;Joiner and Blalock, 1995;Burke, 1999), So organizations should pursue these programs
for female employees with more commitment.
Programs that focus on assertiveness might be also helpful in order to deal adequately
with the social demands in the work environment by using such strategies as saying “no”to
clients, colleagues or superiors, or to holding one’s own priorities.
In addition, to prevent workaholism, employees should be encouraged to detach and
recover from a hard day’s work. A demanding work situation increases the need for recovery
because it draws on an individual’s resources. Successive depletion of resources will result in
negative effects, such as fatigue, and eventually, in exhaustion when no recovery occurs.
Distraction may help employees detach and recover from their work (Shimazu and
Schaufeli, 2009).
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
53
Another useful strategy is to address the organizational culture. The organizational
culture in which employees working long hours are the “heroes”who are displayed as role
models should be replaced by a culture that stimulates working smart rather than hard and
that values a healthy work–life balance. This is not an easy thing to accomplish because those
who are in charge of that culture change are often work addicts themselves.
Since this research has been done with a quantitative method in public organizations,
further research is suggested to investigate the factors affecting workaholism in other
organizations (private or public) with qualitative or mixed method. Furthermore, studying
the impact of workaholism on workplace incivility is recommended by considering the role of
other mediating or moderating variables (e.g. personality traits, psychological capital,
organizational culture, etc.).
References
Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999), “Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-471.
Andreassen, C.S., Hetland, J., Molde, H. and Pallesen, S. (2011), “Workaholism’and potential outcomes
in well-being and health in a cross-occupational sample”,Stress and Health, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 209-214.
Archer, J. and Coyne, S.M. (2005), “An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 212-230.
Ashton, R.A., Morris, L. and Smith, I. (2018), “A qualitative meta-synthesis of emergency department
staff experiences of violence and aggression”,International Emergency Nursing, Vol. 39, pp. 13-19.
Avison, W.R. and McAlpine, D.D. (1992), “Gender differences in symptoms of depression among
adolescents”,Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 77-96.
Aziz, S. and Cunningham, J. (2008), “Workaholism, work stress, work-life imbalance: exploring
gender’srole”,Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 553-566.
Aziz, S. and Tronzo, C.L. (2011), “Exploring the relationship between workaholism facets and
personality traits: a replication in American workers”,The Psychological Record, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 269-286.
Aziz, S. and Zickar, M.J. (2006), “A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 52.
Aziz, S., Uhrich, B., Wuensch, K.L. and Swords, B. (2013), “The workaholism analysis questionnaire:
emphasizing work-life imbalance and addiction in the measurement of workaholism”,Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 71.
Bakker, A.B. and Oerlemans, W. (2011), “Subjective well-being in organizations”,The Oxford
Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, pp. 178-189.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Dollard, M.F. (2008), “How job demands affect partners’experience of
exhaustion: integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, p. 901.
Balducci, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Fraccaroli, F. (2011), “The job demands–resources model and
counterproductive work behaviour: the role of job-related affect”,European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 467-496.
Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., Fraccaroli, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2012), “Exploring the relationship
between workaholism and workplace aggressive behaviour: the role of job-related emotion”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 629-634.
Balducci, C., Conway, P.M. and van Heugten, K. (2021), “The contribution of organizational factors to
workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment”,Pathways of Job-Related Negative
Behaviour, pp. 3-28.
JOEPP
10,1
54
Barling, J., Dupr
e, K.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2009), “Predicting workplace aggression and violence”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 671-692.
Baron, R.A. and Neuman, J.H. (1996), “Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence on
their relative frequency and potential causes”,Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the
International Society for Research on Aggression, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 161-173.
Baruch, Y. (2011), “The positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural perspective: the
chocoholism metaphor”,Career Development International, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 572-591.
Birkeland, I.K. and Nerstad, C. (2016), “Incivility is (not) the very essence of love: passion for work and
incivility instigation”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 77.
Bj€
orkqvist, K.,
€
Osterman, K. and Lagerspetz, K.M. (1994), “Sex differences in covert aggression among
adults”,Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27-33.
Blair-Loy, M. (2009), Competing Devotions: Career and Family Among Women Executives, Harvard
University Press.
Blau, G. and Andersson, L. (2005), “Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility”,Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 595-614.
Bonebright, C.A., Clay, D.L. and Ankenmann, R.D. (2000), “The relationship of workaholism with
work–life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life”,Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Vol. 47 No. 4, p. 469.
Buelens, M. and Poelmans, S.A. (2004), “Enriching the Spence and Robbins’typology of workaholism:
demographic, motivational and organizational correlates”,Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 440-458.
Burgess, Z., Burke, R.J. and Oberklaid, F. (2006). “Workaholism among Australian psychologists:
gender differences”,Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25, pp. 48-59.
Burke, R.J. (1999). “Workaholism in organizations: gender differences”,Sex Roles, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 333-345.
Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2009), “Work motivations, work outcomes, and health: passion versus
addiction”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84 No. 2, p. 257.
Burke, R.J. and Koksal, H. (2002), “Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and
professionals: an exploratory study”,Psychological Reports, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Burke,R.J.,Richardsen,A.M.andMortinussen,M.(2004),“Workaholism among Norwegian managers: work
and well-being outcomes”,Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 459-470.
Carli, L.L. (1999), “Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence”,Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 81-99.
Clark, M.A., Michel, J.S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S.Y. and Baltes, B.B. (2016), “All work and no play?
A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1836-1873.
Cortina, L.M. (2008), “Unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in organizations”,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 No. 1, p. 64.
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E.A., Huerta, M. and Magley, V.J. (2013), “Selective incivility as
modern discrimination in organizations: evidence and impact”,Journal of Management, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 1579-1605.
Cray, D., McKay, R. and Mittelman, R. (2019), “Teaching in Iran: culture and consequences”,
Intercultural Education, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 429-444.
Del L
ıbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2012), “About the dark and bright sides
of self-efficacy: workaholism and work engagement”,The Spanish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 688-701.
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
55
Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”,
Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E. and Smith, H.L. (1999), “Subjective well-being: three decades of
progress”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, p. 276.
Dipboye, R.L. and Halverson, S.K. (2004), “Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations”,
The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 131-158.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social undermining in the workplace”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Fassel, D. (1990), Working Ourselves to Death: The High Cost of Workaholism, the Rewards of
Recovery, Harper, San Francisco.
Felson, R.B. (1982), “Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence”,Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 245-254.
French, J.R., Raven, B. and Cartwright, D. (1959), “The bases of social power”,Classics of Organization
Theory, Vol. 7, pp. 311-320.
Frodi, A., Macaulay, J. and Thome, P.R. (1977), “Are women always less aggressive than men? A
review of the experimental literature”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 4, p. 634.
Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S. and Falletta, S. (2011), “Incivility spiral in mentoring relationships:
reconceptualizing negative mentoring as deviant workplace behavior”,Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Graves, L.M., Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. and Weber, T.J. (2012), “Driven to work and enjoyment of
work: effects on managers’outcomes”,Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1655-1680.
Harpaz, I. and Snir, R. (2003), “Workaholism: its definition and nature”,Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 3, pp. 291-319.
Hofstede, G. (1980), “Culture and organizations”,International Studies of Management and
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 15-41.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Johnson, P.R. and Indvik, J. (2001), “Slings and arrows of rudeness: incivility in the workplace”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 705-714.
Joiner, T.E. and Blalock, J.A. (1995), “Gender differences in depression: the role of anxiety and
generalized negative affect”,Sex Roles, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 91-108.
Jones, K.P., Peddie, C.I., Gilrane, V.L., King, E.B. and Gray, A.L. (2016), “Not so subtle: a meta-analytic
investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination”,Journal of Management,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1588-1613.
Kabat-Farr, D. and Cortina, L.M. (2012), “Selective incivility: gender, race, and the discriminatory
workplace”,Gender and the Dysfunctional Workplace, pp. 120-134.
Keashly, L. (1997), “Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues”,Journal of
Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-117.
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D. and De Carlo, N.A. (2010), “Workaholism among management and
workers in an Italian cooperative enterprise”,TPM-testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in
Applied Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 201-216.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”,Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610.
Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., Takahashi, M., Nakata, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2010),
“Association between workaholism and sleep problems among hospital nurses”,Industrial
Health, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 864-871, doi: 10.2486/indhealth.ms1139.
Lanzo, L., Aziz, S. and Wuensch, K. (2016), “Workaholism and incivility: stress and psychological capital’s
role”,International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 165-183.
JOEPP
10,1
56
Laschinger, H.K., Wong, C., Regan, S., Young-Ritchie, C. and Bushell, P. (2013), “Workplace incivility
and new graduate nurses’mental health: the protective role of resiliency”,The Journal of
Nursing Administration, Vol. 43 Nos 7/8, pp. 415-421.
Lazarus, R.S. (1993), “Coping theory and research: past, present, and future”,Fifty Years of the Research and
Theory of RS Lazarus: An Analysis of Historical and Perennial Issues, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 366-388.
Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996), “A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, p. 123.
Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing at work”,European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-184.
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.
L€
onnqvist, J.E. and große Deters, F. (2016), “Facebook friends, subjective well-being, social support,
and personality”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 113-120.
Loi, N.M., Loh, J.M. and Hine, D.W. (2015), “Don’t rock the boat: the moderating role of gender in the
relationship between workplace incivility and work withdrawal”,Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 169-186.
Martin, R.J. and Hine, D.W. (2005), “Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior
questionnaire”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 477.
McAvoy, B.R. and Murtagh, J. (2003), “Workplace bullying: the silent epidemic”,British Medical
Journal, Vol. 326, pp. 776-778, doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7393.
McMillan, L.H., O Driscoll, M.P. and Burke, R.J. (2003), “Workaholism: a review of theory, research,
and future directions”,International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18,
pp. 167-190.
Milam, A.C., Spitzmueller, C. and Penney, L.M. (2009), “Investigating individual differences among
targets of workplace incivility”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 58.
Montgomery, K., Kane, K. and Vance, C.M. (2004), “Accounting for differences in norms of respect: a
study of assessments of incivility through the lenses of race and gender”,Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 248-268.
Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1997), “Aggression in the Workplace”,Antisocial Behavior in
Organizations, pp. 37-67.
Ng, T.W., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2007), “Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
workaholism: a conceptual integration and extension”,Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 111-136.
Oates, W.E. (1968), “On being a ‘workaholic’”,Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 16-20.
Oates, W.E. (1971), Confessions of a Workaholic: The Facts about Work Addiction, World Publishing
Company.
Ogungbamila, B. (2013), “Occupational burnout among employees in some service occupations
in Nigeria: are health workers different?”,Psychological Thought,Vol.6No.1,pp.153-165,
doi: 10.5964/psyct.v6i1.47.
Ones, D.S. (2002), “Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive behaviors at work”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-4.
Pearson, C.M. and Porath, C.L. (2005), “On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility:
No time for ‘nice’? Think again”,Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Pearson, C. and Porath, C. (2009), The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business
and what to Do about it, Penguin Books, New York.
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.
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
57
Porath, C.L., Overbeck, J.R. and Pearson, C.M. (2008), “Picking up the gauntlet: how individuals
respond to status challenges”,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1945-1980.
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, pp. 326-357.
Porter, G. (1996), “Organizational impact of workaholism: suggestions for researching the
negative outcomes of excessive work”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,Vol.1No.1,p.70.
Reio, T.G. Jr and Ghosh, R. (2009), “Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: implications for
human resource development research and practice”,Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 237-264.
Robinson, B.E. (1998), “The workaholic family: a clinical perspective”,American Journal of Family
Therapy, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Robinson, B.E. (1999), “The work addiction risk test: development of a tentative measure of
workaholism”,Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 199-210.
Rosen, C.C., Gabriel, A.S., Lee, H.W., Koopman, J. and Johnson, R.E. (2021), “When lending an ear turns
into mistreatment: an episodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting at
work”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 175-195.
Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”,Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 10, pp. 1213-1232.
Salin, D. (2021), “Workplace bullying and gender: an overview of empirical findings”,Dignity and
Inclusion at Work, pp. 331-361.
Sarwar, A., Irshad, M., Zhong, J.Y., Sarwar, S. and Pasha, R. (2020), “Effects of social undermining in
families on deviant workplace behaviours in Pakistani nurses”,Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 938-947.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006a), “The measurement of work engagement with
a short questionnaire: a cross-national study”,Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Bakker, A.B. (2006b), “Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: on the differences
between work engagement and workaholism”,Research Companion to Working Time and
Work Addiction, pp. 193-217.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. (2008), “Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”,Applied
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Van der Heijden, F.M. and Prins, J.T. (2009a), “Workaholism, burnout
and well-being among junior doctors: the mediating role of role conflict”,Work and Stress,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Taris, T.W. (2009b), “Being driven to work excessively hard: the
evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in The Netherlands and Japan”,Cross-
cultural Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 320-348, Vol. 43 No. 4.
Schou Andreassen, C., Ursin, H. and Eriksen, H.R. (2007), “The relationship between strong motivation
to work, “workaholism”, and health”,Psychology and Health, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 615-629.
Scottl, K.S., Moore, K.S. and Miceli, M.P. (1997), “An exploration of the meaning and consequences of
workaholism”,Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 287-314.
Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being? The
distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees”,Industrial
Health, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 495-502.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kubota, K. and Kawakami, N. (2012), “Do workaholism and work
engagement predict employee well-being and performance in opposite directions?”,Industrial
Health, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 316-321.
JOEPP
10,1
58
Smith, L.M., Andrusyszyn, M.A. and Spence Laschinger, H.K. (2010), “Effects of workplace incivility
and empowerment on newly-graduated nurses”, organizational commitment”,Journal of
Nursing Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1004-1015.
Sonnentag, S. and Zijlstra, F.R. (2006), “Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors of need
for recovery, well-being, and fatigue”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, p. 330.
Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2005), “The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior”,in
Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (Eds), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and
Targets, American Psychological Association, pp. 151-174, doi: 10.1037/10893-007.
Spence, J.T. and Robbins, A.S. (1992), “Workaholism: definition, measurement, and preliminary
results”,Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 160-178.
Statistics, A.B.O. (2011), Labour Force Australia, Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Sussman, S. (2012), “Workaholism: a review”,Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy, Vol. 6 No. 1,
doi: 10.4172/2155-6105.S6-001.
Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Verhoeven, L.C. (2005), “Workaholism in The Netherlands:
measurement and implications for job strain and work–nonwork conflict”,Applied Psychology,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 37-60.
Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Shimazu, A. (2010), “The push and pull of work: the differences
between workaholism and work engagement”,Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential
Theory and Research, pp. 39-53.
Tepper, B.J. (2007), “Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research
agenda”,Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 261-289.
Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., Schaufeli, W. and Van den Hout, M. (2011), “Understanding workaholism
and work engagement: the role of mood and stop rules”,Career Development International,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 254-270.
Volk, A.A., Marini, Z.A. and Dane, A.V. (2016), “The relations between incivility and adolescent health
and wellbeing”,Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 79-86.
Vuolo, J. (2018), “Student nurses’experiences of incivility and the impact on learning and emotional
wellbeing”,Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 102-111.
Xia, Y. and Yang, Y. (2019), “RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered
categorical data: the story they tell depends on the estimation methods”,Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 409-428.
Yu, Y., Xu, S., Li, G. and Kong, H. (2020), “A systematic review of research on abusive supervision in
hospitality and tourism”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 2473-2496.
Further reading
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Corresponding author
Fatemeh Taheri can be contacted at: f_taheri@ut.ac.ir
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
Factors
affecting the
workplace
incivility
59
