BACKGROUND: Interrelations between incivility and its precursors or consequences, as well as the role of these interrelations in employees’ reactions to incivility are still poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to assess different reactions to workplace incivility while identifying specific and individual-based appraisals and emotions associated with these reactions. METHOD: A qualitative research approach using semi-structured in-depth interviews, with a sample of 42 employees in a beverage manufacturing corporation in Israel to capture employees’ voices regarding their incivility experiences. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews indicated four reaction-categories: (1) Exit; (2) Voice; (3) Loyalty; and (4) Neglect, in line with the theoretical EVLN model for describing reactions to stressful conditions. In particular, the interviews revealed a dynamic reaction process and suggested that intentionality of reaction provides a third, new dimension. Additionally, an underlying emotional process rooted in appraisals and aroused emotions was evident in each of the reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that wish to reduce incivility events may wish to examine the emotions of targets of incivility, explore the underlying appraisals associated with these emotions, and be mindful of the dynamic and highly individual reaction processes involved.

The modern welfare state, which was created in the long economic expansion of the post‐World War II era, funded benefits that provided income security across the life course. In the 1970s, the era of welfare state expansion slowed due to rising deficits and fiscal strains associated with population aging. In recent decades benefit reductions have become commonplace. Theories designed to explain the formation of welfare state include the logic of industrialism, power resource theory, and the theory of welfare state regimes. Feminist critics challenged theorists to consider how welfare benefits influence gender inequality within regime types. In recent years, research has focused on three key issues. The first is to identify variations in welfare state attitudes across nations and among individuals within nations. The second is to consider the causes and consequences of activation policies that focus less on direct cash transfers and more on a combination of incentives and punishments to encourage work effort. Finally, the third is to expand the definition of the welfare state to include the private provision of goods and services as well as education.

Purpose – According to convergence theory, over time societies form similar social structures, political processes and public policies. In 2001, Israel adopted a welfare reform plan that rejected the traditional strategy of passive income support and instead endorsed the concept of activation. The plan was modeled on the Wisconsin Welfare to Work program and was designed to put the long-term unemployed to work. The program began operating in four regions in 2004 but was abruptly terminated six years later. The purpose of this paper is to analyze why Israel’s welfare reform failed to follow the smooth path predicted by convergence theory and elucidates the factors in the Israeli environment that made the implementation of a program borrowed from the USA unsustainable. Design/methodology/approach – A multi-method approach including interviews with key informants, content analysis of media materials and government documents and a quantitative comparative values analysis of four nations. Findings – The failure of US-style welfare reform in Israel was due to four main factors: a more diverse recipient population, a lack of understanding of Israeli cultural values, a welfare population that included a substantial number of ethnic minorities whose customs conflicted with program regulations and a social movement against the program by non-profit organizations. Originality/value – This paper demonstrates the limitations of convergence theory and highlights the salience of cultural values in the transmission of activation policies across nations. Specifically, it shows that outcomes vary when policies that are superficially similar are implanted in nations with fundamentally different cultures.