A meta‐analysis integrating 20 years of workplace incivility research: Antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions

Abstract

Summary In this study, we propose and examine an integrative framework to investigate factors contributing to the experience of workplace incivility (including victim demography, dispositional individual differences, and environmental factors); the affective, health‐related, social exchange‐based, and behavioral outcomes associated with experienced incivility; and boundary conditions for their relationships. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive meta‐analysis on the antecedents and consequences of experienced workplace incivility based on 253 statistically independent samples from 219 primary studies and examine several moderators such as differences in time‐related research design (cross‐sectional vs. time‐lagged), incivility instigator source, and occupation. Further, by integrating meta‐analytic effect sizes from the current study with effect sizes from existing meta‐analyses, we also investigate the extent to which the impact of experienced incivility on outcomes differs from that of higher intensity forms of workplace mistreatment inclusive of bullying, abusive supervision, and sexual harassment, thereby enhancing understanding regarding the nomological net of experienced incivility in comparison with more intense forms of workplace mistreatment. We discuss the implications of these findings along with study limitations and future directions for incivility scholarship.

Impact of Psychopathy and Narcissism on Employees’ Adverse Outcomes: A Perspective of Ethical Climate Theory and Threatened-Egotism Model

“…The present study finds out the answer to the following questions; by investigating the intervening mechanism of WPI between psychopathic, narcissist personalities and CWBs; also, this study find out the answer to the question about the role of Islamic work values by examining IWVs as a moderator between WPI -CWBs relationship. This study also answers the call for research by Eisenbarth et al (2022), Lata and Chaudhry (2020), Shin andHur (2019), andLiu et al (2020a) by investigating the direct effect of psychopathic and narcissist personalities on CWBs; by explaining the intervening mechanism of WPI by overcoming the gap as suggested by Han et al (2021), especially in the context of public sector organization. Additionally, we also answer the empirical research gap, as suggested by Cortina et al (2021), by examining the moderating role of Islamic work values that how these values as the culture of organization reduce the positive intensity of the affiliation amongst WPI and CWBs.…”

A meta-analysis of experienced incivility and its correlates: Exploring the dual path model of experienced workplace incivility.

“…Some of the human service sector moderation analyses were based on subgroups containing few samples. We caution against over-interpreting results where subgroups contained few studies in this and other recent meta-analyses (e.g., Han et al, 2021). Many studies examined incivility within a variety of occupations, which prevented us from categorizing these studies as either human service or indirect person-related occupations.…”

“…variables (Table 9, p = .01, within the lowest 5% effect sizes of Paterson et al's benchmarking data, 2016). Recent meta-analytic research found very small differences of δ = .06 and ρ = .01 between men and women in perceptions of incivility (Han et al, 2021;McCord et al, 2018;Yao et al, 2021). Moreover, primary studies have found that mistreatment shows similar effects for men and women (e.g., Cortina et al, 2002;Lim et al, 2008;Magley et al, 1999;Richman et al, 2002;Rospenda et al, 2000).…”

“…Hershcovis (2011) recommends exploring the moderating role of the perpetrator–victim relationship. We examine the role of formal power distance as a moderator of the model correlates, with effect sizes that involve only experienced workplace incivility from insiders (i.e., Han et al, 2021, include incivility from outsiders as well).…”

“…d = PET-PEESE: final adjusted estimate (meta-regression approach: two-tailed test); Differences in N/k between present meta-analysis andHan et al, 2021 are signaled in bold font; Gender coded 0 = male; 1 = female; NA = negative affectivity. a Somatic symptoms was coded as physical health inHan' et al (2021), thus explaining the opposite direction of the relationship.…”