Workplace Incivility and Employees’ Personal Initiative: A Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Exhaustion and Meaningful Work

Abstract

Workplace incivility has many negative effects, but its impact on personal initiative and related mechanisms are still unclear. Drawing from conservation of resource theory, we tested the relationship between workplace incivility, emotional exhaustion, meaningful work, and personal initiative. The results from three-wave lagged and multisource data (N = 229) indicated that workplace incivility was negatively correlated with personal initiative, and this relationship was mediated by emotional exhaustion. In addition, meaningful work attenuated the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. The findings reveal that workplace incivility hurts employees’ personal initiative in the organizational context by depleting individuals’ emotional resources, leading to emotional exhaustion, while meaningful work is a critical cognitive resource that can buffer this relationship. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords

workplace incivility personal initiative emotional exhaustion meaningful work conservation of resource theory

Introduction

Workplace incivility occurs when employees suffer rude and discourteous behaviors from coworkers, supervisors, or customers in the workplace (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). It is estimated that 98% of employees have experienced incivility behaviors, and 50% have suffered from these behaviors at least weekly (Porath & Pearson, 2013). As an interpersonal conflict that individuals often face in the workplace, it is essential to discuss how and when incivility affects employee behaviors (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Previous studies have focused mainly on the effect of workplace incivility on negative work outcomes or in-role performance (Cortina et al., 2001; Kern & Grandey, 2009; Lim et al., 2008; Penney & Spector, 2005; Potipiroon & Ford, 2019; Qian et al., 2019; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017), with less attention given to proactive work behaviors (Liu et al., 2019; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). Personal initiative is an important proactive behavior and a key factor in the continued development of modern organizations and employees (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1996). Due to intensified market competition, accelerated innovation, the tendency toward flattening and decentralizing of organizational structures and new changes in work characteristics, employees need to possess higher-level personal initiative and exhibit more positive behaviors to meet the challenges from both inside and outside the organization (Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1996; Frohman, 1997).

Based on previous findings, we aim to broaden the understanding of the mechanisms through which workplace incivility might affect personal initiative, which is an understudied outcome of workplace incivility. According to conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we hypothesize that workplace incivility is an important stressor for employees and has a negative impact on employees’ personal initiative. COR theory has been widely used to explain interpersonal conflict in the workplace (Cheng et al., 2020; Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017). Individuals usually strive to retain personal resources to prevent further resource loss in stressful situations (Hobfoll, 1989). Employees may exhaust their emotional resources when they have uncivil encounters in the workplace (Cortina et al., 2001) and reduce their proactive behaviors to protect their resources. Meanwhile, we propose that meaningful work will serve as a buffering factor that mitigates the negative relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative. Specifically, employees with higher levels of meaningful work may perceive more meaning and value in their job. This unique cognitive resource from work undermines the negative impact of emotional resource loss on work outcomes.

Our study contributes to the existing literature and theory in several aspects. First, although the connection of workplace incivility to negative work behaviors or in-role performance has been examined (Cortina et al., 2001, 2002; Pearson et al., 2001; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), the relationship between workplace incivility and proactive behavior or extra-role performance has not been fully examined (Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Porath & Erez, 2009; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). Since the relationship between workplace incivility and proactive performance and its mechanism might be different from that of other behaviors (Schilpzand et al., 2016), addressing this issue is important both theoretically and practically. In the current study, we examine the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative and test its potential mechanism and boundary conditions based on COR theory. We offer empirical evidence to better understand whether, how, and when workplace incivility affects personal initiative and contribute to the literature on workplace incivility and personal initiative.

Second, our study also contributes to COR theory. The literature has explained the relationship between workplace incivility and work outcomes using COR theory (Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Sliter et al., 2010, 2012; Taylor et al., 2017) but does not classify resources in detail or test their unique effects. From the perspective of emotional resources, we explore the potential mechanism through the link between workplace incivility and personal initiative, and demonstrate the buffering effect of key cognitive resources such as meaningful work. We further distinguish between cognitive and emotional resources and examine how different types of resources play different roles. Moreover, the current research provides empirical evidence for COR theory. It offers new insight into understanding the roles of various resources in the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. Additionally, the current research applies the moderating effect of meaningful work to the prevalent workplace stress context, providing referencing methods by which employees could regulate their stress behaviors and strengthen their proactive behavior.

Theory and Hypotheses

Workplace Incivility and Emotional Exhaustion

Workplace incivility arises from low-intensity negative behaviors of colleagues who have ambiguous intentions to inflict harm and violate mutual respect principles (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Empirical research has shown that experienced workplace incivility may negatively affect employees’ physical and psychological health (Lim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001), deplete personal psychological resources, and trigger negative emotions at work (Pearson et al., 2001). Target employees in a qualitative study reported that the impact of the uncivil event could last for several years (Pearson et al., 2000, 2001). Moreover, workplace incivility can also lead to negative work outcomes (Qian et al., 2019; Schilpzand et al., 2016), such as increased work pressure (Kern & Grandey, 2009), retaliation (Bunk et al., 2011; Restubog et al., 2011), absenteeism (Sliter et al., 2012), turnover intentions (Lim et al., 2008; Potipiroon & Ford, 2019; Taylor et al., 2017) and counterproductive work behaviors (Penney & Spector, 2005). A few studies have focused on the effects of workplace incivility on proactive performance or out-of-role performance (Liu et al., 2019; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). However, the extant incivility literature possesses some theoretical gaps, and the psychological processes that are affected by experiencing incivility have not been adequately clarified (Schilpzand et al., 2016). In particular, the mediators, moderators, and boundary conditions of the relationships between workplace incivility and proactive work behaviors have not been sufficiently studied (Schilpzand & Huang, 2018), all of which limit our comprehensive and in-depth understanding of workplace incivility.

Porath and Pearson (2012) suggested that targets of workplace incivility might evaluate the extent of the impact of the stressful situation in terms of potential harm, threat, and challenge to the self, which leads to individuals’ emotional response, thereby guiding the behavioral response based on appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1999). Hur et al. (2015) explained the influencing mechanisms of workplace incivility from an affective events theory (AET) perspective (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), arguing that workplace events are the primary source of employees’ emotional responses. Uncivil behaviors first affect their emotional state and then lead to downstream behavioral responses. As mentioned previously, we argue that emotional responses may be faster and more timely than other responses, for they are instinctive and primary reactions to adverse events. Therefore, we chose emotional exhaustion as a mediating variable to explore the relationship between the two.

Emotional exhaustion is described as the feeling of being emotionally overwrought. It manifests as the exhaustion of employees’ emotional resources that result in a lack of feelings, care, trust, and interests, which can manifest as fatigue, irritability, and depression (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Based on COR theory, individuals always make active efforts to acquire, retain, and protect the resources they believe precious, including emotional resources, and minimize the threat of resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). Particularly, when individuals are under stress, they are prone to lose resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Workplace incivility is an essential social stressor and creates an emotional burden on employees (Karatepe et al., 2019; Kern & Grandey, 2009; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Sliter et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2017; Tong et al., 2019; van Jaarsveld et al., 2010). Although the intensity of each instance of incivility is low, the repeated occurrence of incivility can increase the employee stress experience (Kern & Grandey, 2009), which can deplete their emotional resources (Taylor et al., 2017). First, uncivil behavior from coworkers fails to meet employees’ basic needs for relationship and belonging (Bureau et al., 2021; Trépanier et al., 2013). For example, when coworkers treat target employees in a rude or impolite manner, such as when they lose their temper toward them, interrupt them, or fail to care about their needs (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2001), interpersonal trust and relationship quality may be reduced, leading to negative emotions (Kern & Grandey, 2009; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2007; Sakurai & Jex, 2012) and emotional resource depletion (Lan et al., 2020; Sliter et al., 2010). Moreover, employees who perceive that they are ostracized by uncivil behaviors believe that their efforts will not be recognized or responded to (Schilpzand & Huang, 2018) and that the resources they have invested will not be returned. Second, because of the ambiguous nature of incivility, the targets of uncivil behaviors spend time and effort on processing the uncivil treatment (Liu et al., 2019), which further consumes their work-related social and emotional resources (Cho et al., 2016; Hobfoll, 1989; Tong et al., 2019; Sliter et al., 2010, 2012; Taylor et al., 2017). When limited emotional resources cannot handle current emotional demands, it can lead to strain reactions such as emotional exhaustion (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Previous research has provided empirical support for the positive effect of workplace incivility on emotional exhaustion (e.g., Kern & Grandey, 2009; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Sliter et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2017). Therefore, we suggest following this established relationship and then using it as the basis for our proposed mediation relationships. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Experienced workplace incivility is negatively related to emotional exhaustion.

The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion

Personal initiative is a proactive behavior pattern that shows that the individual has an energetic work style that enables work objectives and tasks to be achieved and persistently overcomes obstacles and setbacks. Personal initiative has three characteristics: self-starting, proactive, and overcoming barriers (Frese et al., 1996, 1997). Personal initiative has a positive impact on organizational and personal work outcomes, such as high-level job performance (Frese & Fay, 2001), innovation (Daniels et al., 2011; Hakanen et al., 2008), employability (Frese et al., 1997), work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008), and organizational effectiveness (Fay & Frese, 2001; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). It is critical to identify potential factors that might help organizations protect employees’ personal initiative.

First, to retain personal resources, individuals who have lost resources could adopt defensive strategies to protect existing resources and prevent further loss of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Specifically, COR theory predicts that when faced with stress, individuals try to reduce the net loss of resources and adopt a self-protective behavior style. In the workplace, this may translate into employees disengaging from activities unrelated to essential tasks (Cole & Bedeian, 2007; Leiter, 1991), such as organizational citizenship behavior (Liu et al., 2019) or proactive behavior (Schilpzand & Huang, 2018), to conserve resources. Emotional exhaustion has also been documented to decrease employee commitment (Cole & Bedeian, 2007) and work engagement (Chi & Liang, 2013) and even increase turnover intentions (Carson et al., 2010). Although personal initiative sometimes brings more resources and benefits to individuals, Hobfoll (1989) believes that individuals need to protect their resources is stronger than that to acquire redundant resources. When faced with a loss of resources, individuals tend to prevent the continued loss of resources first rather than invest resources to obtain them.

Second, because personal initiative requires individuals to not only complete in-role performance but also actively expand task boundaries and improve their work environment and conditions while being fraught with uncertainty and risk (Frese et al., 1997), it can consume substantial personal resources. However, targets of workplace incivility must spend resources dealing with the repercussions of workplace incivility and are unable to allocate more resources for personal initiative. Thus, targets of workplace incivility who experience emotional exhaustion may not engage in proactive behaviors, even if they want to. In addition, depletion of employees’ emotional resources may cause depression and reduce positive emotions (Hu et al., 2020; Tourigny et al., 2010). Employees with a lack of positive emotional resources are unable to broaden their mindset and stimulate a willingness to experiment (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), thus reducing personal initiative.

Thus, we hold that experiencing workplace incivility leads to resource depletion and emotional exhaustion, and then undermines personal initiative. In other words, emotional exhaustion may be the mechanism by which workplace incivility affects personal initiative. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Emotional exhaustion is negatively related to personal initiative.

Hypothesis 3: Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between experienced workplace incivility and personal initiative.

The Moderating Role of Meaningful Work

Although the boundary condition of uncivilized behavior has been an urgent research topic in this field (Cortina et al., 2001; Schilpzand et al., 2016), the mechanism by which the negative effect of uncivilized behavior on work outcomes can be mitigated has been generally understudied. While previous studies have focused on the moderating effects of personal characteristics or personality (Cortina et al., 2001; Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Penney & Spector, 2005; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018; Shi et al., 2018; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012) and organizational climate or rules (Paulin & Griffin, 2016; Sakurai & Jex, 2012), the impact of job characteristics has rarely been addressed. The current study focuses on the moderating role of job characteristics (e.g., meaningful work). For example, is it possible to mitigate the negative reactions of employees who have experienced uncivil treatment if they believe their work to be meaningful and valuable? Addressing such issues should receive attention because workplace incivility not only is harmful to the targets’ health and well-being but also may lead the targets to engage in behavior that is detrimental to the organization’s interests (Sakurai & Jex, 2012). Meaningful work is a key factor that has positive effects on individuals’ work behaviors, attitudes, and performance. By introducing meaningful work as an important moderator, the current study addresses the lack of existing literature on the boundary condition of the relationship between workplace incivility and outcomes (Schilpzand et al., 2016) and provides empirical evidence for how to reduce the negative effects of workplace incivility.

The earliest empirical literature on the meaningfulness of work comes from the job characteristics model proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976). When the work is significant, challenging, and complete, employees perceive their work as meaningful, which can greatly stimulate intrinsic motivation (Hackman, 1980; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Individuals judge their work to be meaningful when they believe it to be important, valuable, and positive (Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2013). Meaningful work involves an individual’s views toward work beliefs and values and is considered a cognitive variable (Rosso et al., 2010; Spreitzer, 1996; Steger et al., 2013). It has been ubiquitously documented that meaningful work could promote employees’ positive working attitudes and outcomes, such as work motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012), job engagement (Ahmed et al., 2016; Fairlie, 2011; Johnson & Jiang, 2017; Lee et al., 2017; May et al., 2004; Soane et al., 2013; Steger et al., 2013; Van Wingerden & Van der Stoep, 2018), job satisfaction (Fairlie, 2011; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995), work identity (Pratt et al., 2006), organizational commitment (Fairlie, 2011), career development (Duffy et al., 2011), life satisfaction (Kim & Beehr, 2018; Steger et al., 2012), employee flourishing (Kim & Beehr, 2020), well-being (Arnold et al., 2007), job performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Kosfeld et al., 2017; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), and voice behavior (Chen et al., 2018).

When employees believe that their work is valuable and essential, they are intrinsically motivated by a sense of experiencing psychological satisfaction and achievement in their jobs, which is a precious cognitive resource (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Hobfoll, 1989; Lee et al., 2017; Steger et al., 2013). According to COR theory, resources are replaceable, meaning that individuals use other resources (e.g., meaningful work) to offset the loss of a resource (Hobofull, 1989; Pearlin et al., 1981). Both work-related emotional resources (friendly relationships) and cognitive resources (meaningful work) are forms of work resources. When emotional resources are depleted due to experiencing workplace incivility, meaningful work could provide cognitive resources to offset the loss of emotional resources. For example, employees who experience self-worth and importance through meaningful work may be able to relieve their feelings of being disrespected and belittled due to rough treatment. Furthermore, the incivility experience does not meet the target employees’ basic human needs for relatedness (Bureau et al., 2021; Trépanier et al., 2013) and weakens their relational connection with colleagues through feelings of ostracism (Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). However, meaningful work can strengthen the relational connection between employees and their work. Specifically, when employees think of their work as valuable and enjoyable, they have a stronger sense of identity with their work and perceive it as an extension of self. Job resources (e.g., meaningful work) intrinsically motivate employees to enhance personal engagement (Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2007). According to the job demands-resources model, job resources are believed to activate a motivational process and have positive-gain spiral effects on the individual. These resources provide support and assistance to employees; are useful for personal growth, learning, and development; and enhance personal engagement (Hakanen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2007), willingness to dedicate (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2001), and adherence to behaviors (Hackman, 1980; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Thus, the cognitive resources that stem from meaningful work may increase the degree to which individuals are willing to devote themselves to their role performances and engage in proactive behaviors. Then, after replenishing personal resources, individuals try to gain more resources and enrich their resource pool by using their remaining personal resources when they are not subject to many stressors (Hobfoll, 1989). Some empirical studies have shown that personal initiative can break and expand existing work boundaries to craft the work environment, which helps employees to obtain more job resources (Fay & Frese, 2001; Frese & Fay, 2001; Hakanen et al., 2008). Therefore, after employees supplement resources through meaningful work, they are more likely to take personal initiative to gain more resources.

We propose that meaningful work has a moderating effect only on the second stage of the model rather than the first. This is because when employees experience uncivil treatment, they are first aroused to take an emotional response (Hur et al., 2015; Porath & Pearson, 2012) and then to have a cognitive mindset. Previous research explored the effects of incivility on emotional reactions and moderators of mitigation, which seem to imply that individuals have instinctive emotional reactions when they experience uncivil treatment and the processes are not influenced by moderators (Guo et al., 2022; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Sakurai & Jex, 2012). In the second stage, however, other factors (e.g., leadership support or self-perceived employability) have a buffer effect on the relationship between emotional reactions and work behavior (Guo et al., 2022; Sakurai & Jex, 2012). In addition, A review of workplace incivility reviewed the antecedents of experienced incivility and the antecedents of perpetrating incivility, and noting that it is impossible to determine what the interpersonal relationship between the instigator and the target is or whether the instigator perpetrated incivility because the target is irritating and incompetent (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Therefore, we argued the reasons for instigators’ incivility are not always related to the job performance of targets of uncivil experiences. Incivility has an ambiguous intent to harm, and instigators may not even be conscious of such intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). For example, when a person makes a rude joke about a specific coworker, that person may be intentionally humiliating that coworker or that person may just not have a good sense of humor (Sakurai & Jex, 2012). In this context, the target is unlikely to think that the initiator is doing this because of his or her job performance or something directly related to the job. Mere interpersonal, low-intensity, harm-intended ambiguous incivility may not make employees think about deeper work-related things (such as the meaning and value of work).

However, in the second stage, the depletion of emotional resources affects subsequent employees’ proactive behavior at work. At this stage, meaningful work is closer to work behavior, which may affect the relationship between emotional resource loss and proactive behavior. As a cognitive resource, meaningful work buffers the negative impact of emotional exhaustion and personal initiative. Whereas the meaning of work is a positive cognition of the work itself, there is no reason to think that it might reduce the negative effects of interpersonal emotional conflict. Thus, meaningful work does not alleviate the negative relationship between workplace incivility and emotional exhaustion in the first stage. Nevertheless, it can buffer the subsequent negative impact on work behaviors and motivate employees to do their jobs. This is why we assume that meaningful work moderates the second stage of the model rather than the first stage. Accordingly, we conclude that meaningful work might be a moderating variable that weakens the negative relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative and weaken the indirect effect of workplace incivility on personal initiative. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Meaningful work moderates the relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative, such that the negative relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative is weaker for individuals with higher levels of meaningful work.

Hypothesis 5: Meaningful work moderates the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative via emotional exhaustion, such that the indirect effect is weaker for individuals with higher levels of meaningful work.

Figure 1 shows our research model and hypotheses.

Figure 1.

Proposed research model of workplace incivility and personal initiative.

Methodology

Participants and Procedure

We invited employees and supervisors working at a manufacturing company in China to participate in this study. The distribution and collection of questionnaires in the company were conducted with the help of the human resource staff. These participants received a small gift worth $1 at the end of each survey. Voluntary participation and confidentiality were assured. This study was conducted under Institutional Review Board Protocol #2019–04–12 (Title: Workplace Incivility and Employees’ Personal Initiative: A Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Exhaustion and Meaningful Work). All survey materials are translated and back-translated according to the standard procedures (Brislin, 1970).

Employees who participated in the survey were asked to complete the questionnaire during break time. Considering the practical operation and limited time, we did not measure all variables at all measurement points. After referring to several empirical studies (Guo et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2019; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018), we adopted a time-lagged study design, which could reduce the effect of common method bias on the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To avoid participants’ true perceptions being influenced by the scale statements of multiple variables, we do not measure the moderating variables and predictive variables at the same time point. This method also draws on the practices of previous studies (Guo et al., 2022; Klotz et al., 2018; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). Survey data were collected via paper-and-pencil surveys at three time points. At Time 1, 350 participants were asked to complete questions about workplace incivility and their demographic information. We collected 342 responses (with a response rate of 97.7%). At Time 2, 3 months after Time 1, those 342 participants were asked to complete the questionnaire on emotional exhaustion. We collected 274 responses (with a response rate of 80.1%). At Time 3, 3 months after Time 2, 274 participants were asked to complete the meaningful work questionnaire. We collected 229 responses (with a response rate of 83.6%).

Personal initiative is a proactive work behavior that falls under the concept of active performance (Frese & Fay, 2001). In meta-analytic literature, Tornau and Frese (2013) argued that self-reported proactivity is closer to personality judgments, while supervisor reports are more strongly based on behavior. Since personal initiative is not a subjective willingness or personality trait but a positive behavior that can be observed by others, we believe that the use of self-report measures lacks objectivity and that supervisor-rated measures should be used. This approach is common in the I/O field (Schilpzand & Huang, 2018; Xue, 2009), and multisource data are beneficial in reducing common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, we requested 15 supervisors who are the direct leader of the employees to rate their subordinates’ personal initiative based on their subordinates’ actual work behaviors. After matching, the final sample consisted of 229 participants. Among these participants, 127 were male (55.5%), and 102 were female (44.5%); the average age was 33.3 (SD = 7.89) years. The differences between the lost samples and the retained samples were tested to investigate the potential impact of attrition, but no significant differences emerged for workplace incivility (t = −0.08, p > .05), emotional exhaustion (t = −1.50, p > .05), or gender (χ² = 0.32, p > .05) but did emerge for age (M_loss = 31.04, SD_loss = 0.91; M_retain = 33.30, SD_retain = 0.52; difference_loss-retain = −2.26, t = −2.24, p < .05).

Measures

Workplace incivility

Workplace incivility was measured at Time 1 using a 7-item scale developed by Cortina et al. (2001). The participants were asked to rate the items on a 5-point scale (from 1 = never, 5 = everyday) regarding how often they experienced the situation described in each given statement from their coworkers. A sample item is “Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie” (α = .95).

Emotional exhaustion

We measured emotional exhaustion at Time 2 using a 6-item scale developed by Wharton (1993). The participants were asked to rate each item on a 7-point scale (0 = never, 6 = everyday) regarding how often they experienced the situation described in statements about their work. One sample item is “I feel I’m working too hard on my job” (α = .91).

Meaningful work

The 3-item scale developed by Spreitzer (1995) was adopted to assess meaningful work at Time 3. The participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements on a 7-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “My job activities are personally meaningful to me” (α = .83).

Personal initiative

We collected data on supervisor-rated personal initiative using the 7-item scale developed by Frese et al. (1997) at Time 3 with a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). For example, this employee (a) actively attacks problems, (b) takes initiative immediately even when others don’t, and (c) uses opportunities quickly in order to attain his or her goals (α = .90).

Control variables

We included several employee demographic variables (e.g., age, gender) in data collection since many previous studies suggest that they may have possible effects on our key variables (Babakus et al., 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Gallus et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2008). Specifically, previous studies have concluded that men commit more incivility (Gallus et al., 2014; Pearson et al., 2000) and women report experiencing higher levels of incivility because women are more sensitive to social cues and interpersonal relationships, which may make them more prone to pick up on and perceive incivility (Lim et al., 2008). However, multiple empirical studies have found conflicting results. Some studies have shown that men experience uncivil behavior at a greater frequency than women (Lim & Lee, 2011), while others have shown that women experience more incivility than men (Cortina et al., 2001, 2013). Lim and Lee (2011) also found that age has an impact on the frequency of incivility experiences, with younger employees having more incivility experiences than older employees. In addition, Babakus et al. (1999) argued that future research needs to consider the relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal characteristics. In particular, emotional exhaustion may vary with age (Babakus et al., 1999). Given the findings of the existing studies, we controlled for gender and age.

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. The directions of these intercorrelations were consistent with our expectations.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.	Gender-T1	—	—	—
2.	Age-T1	33.30	7.89	.20**	—
3.	Workplace incivility-T1	1.71	0.95	.14*	.08	(.95)
4.	Emotional exhaustion-T2	2.09	1.44	.11	−.01	.17^*	(.91)
5.	Meaningful work-T3	4.71	1.18	−.05	−.06	−.17*	−.44**	(.83)
6.	Personal initiative-T3	5.67	0.80	−.09	−.12	−.15*	−.17**	.19**	(.90)

Note: N = 229. For gender, 1 = male, 0 = female. T1–T3 = Time 1 to Time 3.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Test of Measurement Model

Because each supervisor evaluated the personal initiative of multiple subordinates in our sample, we examined the between-group differences in the personal initiative evaluation variables. The results showed that the ICC1 value for personal initiative ratings was only 0.01, indicating that the amount of variance explained by supervisor factors was minimal and that the data were highly independent (ICC1 < 0.10, Bliese, 2000). Therefore, statistical analysis of the data at the individual level is more appropriate (Bliese & Hanges, 2004).

To examine the discrimination of the measured constructs, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis by using Mplus 7. The results showed that the four-factor (i.e., Time 1 workplace incivility, Time 2 emotional exhaustion, Time 3 meaningful work, and Time 3 personal initiative) model fit the data well, χ²(224) = 555.83, p < .01, CFI [Comparative Fit Index] = .91, TLI [Tucker–Lewis Index] = .90, RMSEA [Root Mean Square Error of Approximation] = .08. All items in this model were significantly loaded on their corresponding factors. Compared with all six constrained models in which any two of the four factors were combined, our four-factor model produced a significantly better fit than the best competing model: Δχ²(3) = 215.83, p < .01. These results showed the distinctiveness of our measures. Thus, we decided to retain our four-factor model and proceeded to test our hypotheses.

Tests of Hypotheses

We tested our hypotheses using SPSS version 22. The results shown in Table 2 demonstrate that after controlling for the effects of control variables, Time 1 workplace incivility was positively related to Time 2 emotional exhaustion (β = .24, SE = .10, p < .05), and Time 2 emotional exhaustion was negatively related to Time 3 personal initiative (β = −.08, SE = 0.04, p < .05), supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. We used model 4 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) to test mediation Hypothesis 3. With 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), the results indicated that the indirect effect of Time 1 workplace incivility on Time 3 personal initiative via Time 2 emotional exhaustion was −.02, with 95% CI [−0.061, −0.001]. Therefore, emotional exhaustion mediated the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative, supporting Hypothesis 3.

Table 2.

Results of Hierarchical Regression Modeling.

	M1				M2				M3
	Emotional exhaustion-T2		Personal initiative-T3		Personal initiative-T3		Personal initiative-T3		Personal initiative-T3
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
Intercept	1.78**	0.43	6.38**	.25	5.73**	.37	5.62**	.37	5.75**	.38
Gender-T1	.28	.19	−.06	.11	−.08	.11	−.04	.11	−.03	.11
Age-T1	−.01	.01	−.01	.01	−.01	.01	−.01	.01	−.01	.01
Workplace incivility-T1	.24*	.10	−.09	.06					−.08	.06
Emotional exhaustion-T2			−.08*	.04	−.06	.04	−.05	.04	−.05	.04
Meaningful work-T3					.09^†	.05	.10*	.05	.10*	.05
Emotional exhaustion-T2 ×Meaningful work-T3							.09*	.04	.09*	.04
R ²	.04		.06		.06		.09		.09

Note: N = 229. For gender, 1 = male, 0 = female. T1–T3 = Time 1 to Time 3. Workplace incivility was included as a control variable for the M3.

p < .05. **p < .01. ^†p < .10.

Table 2 presents the moderation effects of meaningful work. We found that the interaction between Time 2 emotional exhaustion and Time 3 meaningful work was significant in predicting personal initiative (β = .09, SE = 0.04, p < .05). Figure 2 shows the pattern of the interaction. The simple slope test revealed that emotional exhaustion was negatively related to personal initiative when employees’ meaningful work (job meaning) was low (−1 SD, t = −2.80, p < .01). In contrast, emotional exhaustion was not significantly related to personal initiative when employees’ meaningful work was high (+1 SD, t = 0.83, ns). The results indicated that meaningful work moderated the relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative, supporting Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of meaningful work (job meaning) on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative.

Additionally, we assessed the conditional indirect effect of workplace incivility on personal initiative through emotional exhaustion at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) values of meaningful work by using model 14 of the PROCESS macro approach (Hayes, 2018). The results in Table 3 indicated that this conditional indirect effect was .01 with 95% CI [−0.009, 0.061] at higher levels of meaningful work versus −.04 with 95% CI [−0.108, −0.002] at lower levels of meaningful work. The difference of the indirect effects between the two conditions was .02 with 95% CI [0.001, 0.059]. Hypothesis 5 was thus also supported.

Table 3.

Indirect Effect of Workplace Incivility on Personal Initiative at Selected Values of Meaningful Work.

Meaningful work	Bootstrapped indirect effect	Boot SE	L 95% CI	U 95% CI
−1 SD	−.04	.03	−.108	−.002
Mean	−.01	.01	−.048	.005
+1 SD	.01	.02	−.009	.061

Note. N = 229. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. L = lower limit; U = upper limit; CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error.

Discussion

Our research aimed to test an underlying mechanism and a boundary condition of the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. Specifically, we demonstrated that workplace incivility was negatively related to personal initiative via emotional exhaustion. Moreover, meaningful work mitigated the relationship between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative and the indirect relationship of workplace incivility with personal initiative through emotional exhaustion. According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we focused on how to use cognitive resources (i.e., meaningful work) to alleviate the mediating effect of emotional resources (i.e., emotional exhaustion) in the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. Additionally, the mediation (i.e., emotional exhaustion) and moderation (i.e., meaningful work) mechanisms found in the current research offer new insights to understand the detrimental effects of workplace incivility and antecedent variables of personal initiative in the work context.

Theoretical Contributions

Our research has several significant theoretical contributions. First, our study extends previous studies on workplace incivility and personal initiative. Previous research has devoted attention to the effect of workplace incivility on negative work outcomes and in-role performance (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001; Penney & Spector, 2005; Sliter et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017), while few studies have focused on the effect of workplace incivility on proactive work behaviors (Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018), such as personal initiative. By examining the link between workplace incivility and personal initiative, our study supplements existing literature on the effect of uncivilized work behaviors on positive work outcomes and enriches the potential antecedents of personal initiative. This shows that personal initiative might not only stem from personality traits (Crant, 2000; Frese et al., 1997), work characteristics (Frese et al., 2007), and work environment (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) but also be undermined by interpersonal stress in the organization.

Second, the processes through which workplace incivility affects work outcomes have not previously been adequately studied (Schilpzand et al., 2016), especially the relationship between workplace incivility and proactive work behaviors (Lan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Schilpzand & Huang, 2018). The current study suggests that the depletion of personal emotional resources mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative, which offers a better understanding of the mechanism driving the connections between workplace incivility and proactive performance. This mediation effect finding contributes to COR theory by providing empirical evidence that unfriendly interpersonal context in the workplace depletes personal emotional resources and then undermines positive work outcomes. This outcome indicates that employees who suffer from slight deviant behavior in the workplace (e.g., workplace incivility) are more likely to experience a depletion of personal emotional resources (e.g., emotional exhaustion) and thus are more likely to attenuate proactive performance (e.g., personal initiative).

Third, our findings on the moderating effect of meaningful work also contribute to both the literature on workplace incivility and COR theory by connecting cognition, emotion, resources, and behavior. We find that meaningful work mitigates the negative effect of emotional exhaustion on personal initiative. These findings are important because they provide new insights into how meaningful work, as a type of key cognitive resource, may help individuals better address interpersonal stress and buffer their depletion of emotional resources (i.e., emotional exhaustion). Moreover, the moderation findings contribute to COR theory by providing empirical evidence for COR theory, which states that cognitive resources attenuate the negative relationship between emotional resources and work outcomes, and enrich the theory that various types of resources have interaction and complementary effects. Specifically, the perception of the value and meaning of work is an important cognitive resource that employees are likely to use to buffer the adverse effects of the loss of emotional resources due to workplace incivility. Compared to employees with low levels of meaningful work, employees with high levels of meaningful work may invest and gain more resources through more proactive behavior based on cognitive resources. Distinguishing between affective and cognitive mechanisms helps explain how various personal resources differentially affect the relationship between uncivil behaviors and individual initiative.

Furthermore, in the modern workplace, the boundary between life and work is increasingly blurred, and emotions, experiences, and resources in various fields can be transmitted and spill over to each other, often between work and nonwork lives (Erdogan et al., 2012). A meaningful job has a significant impact on the individual and enables employees to feel higher self-value and self-esteem and to have a more positive self-image, which spills over into the realm of life and family, with more profound implications for life enrichment (Johnson & Jiang, 2017) and employee flourishing (Kim & Beehr, 2020). Thus, the mitigation of meaningful work for uncivil behavior may be only one of its many roles. Its positive impact is expected to be explored in more areas in the future.

Fourth, it complements COR theory’s reading of the relationship between work incivility and proactivity. The earliest literature used the tit for tat theoretical framework (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) to explain the antecedents and consequences of uncivil behavior. It holds that victims of incivility engage in negative behaviors to retaliate against the initiator of the incivility or their organizations, such as aggression and deviance (Gallus et al., 2014; Penney & Spector, 2005; Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012). Following this, other scholars have explored the underlying mechanisms using COR theory (Liu et al., 2019; Sliter et al., 2010, 2012; Taylor et al., 2017). However, previous studies did not make a detailed distinction between the types of personal resources consumed by workplace incivility. The differentiated roles of multiple resources and different pathway mechanisms have not yet been explored in detail. This article demonstrates the mediating pathways of emotional resources and the moderating roles of cognitive resources in the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. It further clarifies the specific type of resources that are depleted when employees are treated uncivilly, which resources can be replaced, and how they interact with each other. This updates the resource depletion and gain perspective to reveal the relationship between interpersonal conflict and emotional demands and sheds new light on the mechanisms of their relationship.

Practical Implications

Our research also has some practical implications for managers and organizations. First, our results show that workplace incivility can undermine employees’ personal initiative because it makes employees experience emotional exhaustion. However, the instability and fierce competition of modern organizations require employees to achieve strengths through innovation, and employees must engage in more proactive behavior to cope with this difficulty (Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1996; Frohman, 1997; Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Parker, 2000). Therefore, managers need to employ additional preventive measures to reduce the frequency of uncivilized behaviors in the workplace to reduce resource loss and encourage more initiative behavior. Creating a friendly work environment, promoting communication among employees, and establishing a reasonable conflict resolution procedure (Einarsen et al., 2018) can effectively weaken the exclusion behavior in interpersonal relationships and maintain a stress-free environment in which employees work at ease.

Second, this study reveals the mediating role of emotional exhaustion in the relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative. Emotional resources play an important role in employees’ performance. Positive emotions can stimulate more proactive behaviors from employees (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Emotion is a transient state that changes with the situation and can be influenced by the situation. Therefore, when employees feel depressed and exhausted due to workplace interpersonal stress, supervisors need to provide timely interventions to help employees alleviate negative emotions. By taking emotional management training courses, employees can learn how to relieve their negative emotions and stimulate more positive emotions. This approach will help employees protect their emotional resources in the workplace, reduce the harmful effects of negative experiences, and increase positive experiences to motivate personal initiative.

Third, we find that individuals with higher levels of work meaning could significantly reduce the negative effect of workplace incivility. It has been documented that meaningful work can increase employees’ perception of work value and importance, strengthen work identity and career development (Duffy et al., 2011; Pratt et al., 2006; Steger et al., 2012), and promote positive intrinsic motivation (Hackman, 1980; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012). Organizations need to realize the importance of meaningful work and pay attention not only to employees’ work performance but also to employees’ cognition of meaningful work. It is also necessary to cultivate employees’ interest and passion for work by providing training. Moreover, meaningful work should be added to the process of recruitment, selection, appraisal, and promotion. Employees’ positive cognition of work may help them fight against the negative effects of workplace incivility and engage in proactive behaviors to obtain more personal resources.

Limitations and Future Research

The current research has some limitations. First, although this paper demonstrates a mechanism by which workplace incivility affects personal initiative from the perspective of an emotional path and a moderating effect from the perspective of a cognitive path, the effect sizes of the indirect effect of workplace incivility on personal initiative are relatively modest. This may limit the practical significance of these results, and more research is needed to further explore other mediating mechanisms and moderating effects. In addition, insufficient or excessive individual initiative among employees may also influence the uncivilized behaviors of others. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the causal relationship between variables or within-subject change by using an experimental design or a longitudinal design in the future to clarify the possible potential effects.

Second, all the samples and data were taken from one organization, which limited the external validity of the findings. Although collecting all the data in a single organization can control for some potentially confounding variables, it is unknown whether the conclusion can be extended to other organizations. Future studies should be conducted in multiple organizations to test the generalizability of our model.

Third, although our data were collected in three waves and from multiple sources, sample attrition may cause potential bias and then affect the reliability of the results. However, no significant differences were found in key variables such as workplace incivility and emotional exhaustion. Although there was a significant difference in age, which may be due to the higher turnover of young employees and the higher work stability of older employees who can complete three tests, it does not indicate the selective retention of the samples. However, future studies would benefit from enhanced methodological designs to limit sample loss and in turn increase the validity and integrity of data.

Conclusion

In summary, our study revealed a negative relationship between workplace incivility and personal initiative based on COR theory, explicated a mediating role of emotional exhaustion, and identified a critical boundary condition by showing how meaningful work moderates the connection between emotional exhaustion and personal initiative. Consequently, our theoretical model with empirical evidence has laid the foundation for further research in understanding how workplace incivility can undermine positive outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by National Natural Science Fund of China grant #91724102 and #31971013 to Prof. Lei Wang.

Ethics Statement

This study was conducted under Institutional Review Board Protocol #2019-04-12 (Title: Workplace Incivility and Employees’ Personal Initiative: A Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Exhaustion and Meaningful job) at Peking University. All procedures involving human participants in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Voluntary participation and confidentiality were assured.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request. Please contact the corresponding author on reasonable request.

ORCID iD

Lei Wang

References

Ahmed

Majid

A. H. A.

Zin

M. L. M.

(2016). Meaningful work and work engagement: A relationship demanding urgent attention. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v6-i8/2264

Andersson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131

Arnold

K. A.

Turner

Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

McKee

M. C.

(2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193

Babakus

Cravens

D. W.

Johnston

Moncrief

W. C.

(1999). The role of emotional exhaustion in sales force attitude and behavior relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399271005

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

Bliese

P. D.

Hanges

P. J.

(2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104268542

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

10.

Bunk

J. A.

Karabin

Lear

(2011). Understanding why workers engage in rude behaviors: A social interactionist perspective. Current Psychology, 30, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-011-9102-5

11.

Bureau

J. S.

Gagné

Morin

A. J. S.

Mageau

G. A.

(2021). Transformational leadership and incivility: A multilevel and longitudinal test. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, n448–n473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517734219

12.

Carson

R. L.

Baumgartner

J. J.

Matthews

R. A.

Tsouloupas

C. N.

(2010). Emotional exhaustion, absenteeism, and turnover intentions in childcare teachers: Examining the impact of physical activity behaviors. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 905–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309360697

13.

Chen

S.-J.

Wang

M.-J.

Lee

S.-H.

(2018). Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: The mediating effect of employee perceived meaningful work. Personnel Review, 47, 694–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2017-0016

14.

Cheng

Dong

Zhou

Guo

Peng

(2020). Does customer incivility undermine employees’ service performance? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102544

15.

Chi

S.-C. S.

Liang

S.-G.

(2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006

16.

Cho

Bonn

M. A.

Han

S. J.

Lee

K. H.

(2016). Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28, 2888–2912. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-04-2015-0205

17.

Cole

M. S.

Bedeian

A. G.

(2007). Leadership consensus as a cross-level contextual moderator of the emotional exhaustion–work commitment relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.002

18.

Cortina

L. M.

Kabat-Farr

Leskinen

E. A.

Huerta

Magley

V. J.

(2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835

19.

Cortina

L. M.

Lonsway

K. A.

Magley

V. J.

Freeman

L. V.

Collinsworth

L. L.

Hunter

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27, 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x

20.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

Williams

J. H.

Langhout

R. D.

(2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64

21.

Crant

J. M.

(2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304

22.

Daniels

Wimalasiri

Cheyne

Story

(2011). Linking the demands-control-support model to innovation: The moderating role of personal initiative on the generation and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910x494269

23.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

24.

Duffy

R. D.

Manuel

R. S.

Borges

N. J.

Bott

E. M.

(2011). Calling, vocational development, and well being: A longitudinal study of medical students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.023

25.

Einarsen

Skogstad

Rørvik

Lande

Å. B.

Nielsen

M. B.

(2018). Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: A moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

26.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

Truxillo

D. M.

Mansfield

L. R.

(2012). Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38, 1038–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311429379

27.

Fairlie

(2011). Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431679

28.

Fay

Frese

(2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14, 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1401_06

29.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218

30.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Branigan

(2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000238

31.

Frese

Fay

(2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23005-6

32.

Frese

Fay

Hilburger

Leng

Tag

(1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x

33.

Frese

Garst

Fay

(2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1084–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1084

34.

Frese

Kring

Soose

Zempel

(1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between east and west Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63. https://doi.org/10.5465/256630

35.

Frese

Teng

Wijnen

C. J. D.

(1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139–1155. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199912)20:7<1139::aid-job946>3.0.co;2-i

36.

Fritz

Sonnentag

(2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308911

37.

Frohman

A. L.

(1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative. Organizational Dynamics, 25(3), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(97)90046-2

38.

Gallus

J. A.

Bunk

J. A.

Matthews

R. A.

Barnes-Farrell

J. L.

Magley

V. J.

(2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035931

39.

Guo

Qiu

Gan

(2022). Workplace incivility and work engagement: The mediating role of job insecurity and the moderating role of self-perceived employability. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43, 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3377

40.

Hackman

J. R.

(1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11, 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.445

41.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

42.

Hakanen

J. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

43.

Hakanen

J. J.

Perhoniemi

Toppinen-Tanner

(2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003

44.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

45.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513

46.

Houghton

J. D.

Yoho

S. K.

(2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100406

47.

Niu

Dai

Maguire

Zong

Wang

(2020). The relationship between sleep pattern and depression in Chinese shift workers: A mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Australian Journal of Psychology, 72, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12253

48.

Hur

W. M.

Kim

B. S.

Park

S. J.

(2015). The relationship between coworker incivility, emotional exhaustion, and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25, 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20587

49.

Johnson

M. J.

Jiang

(2017). Reaping the benefits of meaningful work: The mediating versus moderating role of work engagement. Stress and Health, 33, 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2710

50.

Karatepe

O. M.

Kim

T. T.

Lee

(2019). Is political skill really an antidote in the workplace incivility-emotional exhaustion and outcome relationship in the hotel industry? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 40, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.06.001

51.

Kern

J. H.

Grandey

A. A.

(2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012684

52.

Kim

Beehr

T. A.

(2018). Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818762337

53.

Kim

Beehr

T. A.

(2020). Thriving on demand: Challenging work results in employee flourishing through appraisals and resources. International Journal of Stress Management, 27, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000135

54.

Klotz

A. C.

Yam

K. C.

Bolino

M. C.

Wei

Houston

(2018). Good actors but bad apples: Deviant consequences of daily impression management at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000335

55.

Kosfeld

Neckermann

Yang

(2017). The effects of financial and recognition incentives across work contexts: The role of meaning. Economic Inquiry, 55, 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12350

56.

Lan

Xia

Hui

Deng

(2020). Thwarted enthusiasm: Effects of workplace incivility on newcomer proactive behaviors. Chinese Management Studies, 14, 1035–1056. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-05-2019-0167

57.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer Pub. Co.

58.

Lee

M. C. C.

Idris

M. A.

Delfabbro

P. H.

(2017). The linkages between hierarchical culture and empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement: Work meaningfulness as a mediator. International Journal of Stress Management, 24, 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000043

59.

Leiter

M. P.

(1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The function of control and escapist coping patterns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120205

60.

Lim

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95

61.

Lim

Lee

(2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021726

62.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

(2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37, 655–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578

63.

Liu

Zhou

Z. E.

Che

X. X.

(2019). Effect of workplace incivility on OCB through burnout: The moderating role of affective commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9591-4

64.

Llorens

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

(2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012

65.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

66.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892

67.

Miner-Rubino

Cortina

L. M.

(2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254–1269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254

68.

Miner-Rubino

Reed

W. D.

(2010). Testing a moderated mediational model of workgroup incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 3148–3168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x

69.

Morrison

E. W.

Phelps

C. C.

(1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011

70.

Motowidlo

S. J.

Van Scotter

J. R.

(1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475

71.

Parker

(2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49, 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00025

72.

Paulin

Griffin

(2016). The relationships between incivility, team climate for incivility and job-related employee well-being: A multilevel analysis. Work and Stress, 30, 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1173124

73.

Pearlin

L. I.

Lieberman

M. A.

Menaghan

E. G.

Mullan

J. T.

(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136676

74.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. M.

Porath

C. L.

(2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00019-x

75.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. M.

Wegner

J. W.

(2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001

76.

Penney

L. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336

77.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

78.

Porath

C. L.

Erez

(2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003

79.

Porath

C. L.

Pearson

C. M.

(2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E326–E357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x

80.

Porath

Pearson

(2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91, 115–121.

81.

Potipiroon

Ford

M. T.

(2019). Relational costs of status: Can the relationship between supervisor incivility, perceived support, and follower outcomes be exacerbated? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92, 873–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12263

82.

Pratt

M. G.

Rockmann

K. W.

Kaufmann

J. B.

(2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786060

83.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

84.

Qian

Yang

Wang

Huang

Song

(2019). When workplace ostracism leads to burnout: The roles of job self-determination and future time orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 2465–2481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1326395

85.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Scott

K. L.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

(2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021593

86.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

87.

Sakurai

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, 17, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027350

88.

Schilpzand

De Pater

I. E.

Erez

(2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976

89.

Schilpzand

Huang

(2018). When and how experienced incivility dissuades proactive performance: An integration of sociometer and self-identity orientation perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 828–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000303

90.

Shi

Guo

Zhang

Xie

Wang

Sun

Dong

Sun

Fan

(2018). Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 8, e020461. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020461

91.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Folger

(1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434

92.

Sliter

Jex

Wolford

McInnerney

(2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020723

93.

Sliter

Jex

(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, 33, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767

94.

Soane

Shantz

Alfes

Truss

Rees

Gatenby

(2013). The association of meaningfulness, well-being, and engagement with absenteeism: A moderated mediation model. Human Resource Management, 52, 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21534

95.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

96.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. https://doi.org/10.5465/256789

97.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

98.

Steger

M. F.

Littman-Ovadia

Miller

Menger

Rothmann

(2013). Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful work interact in relation to work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712471517

99.

Taylor

S. G.

Bedeian

A. G.

Cole

M. S.

Zhang

(2017). Developing and testing a dynamic model of workplace incivility change. Journal of Management, 43, 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314535432

100.

Taylor

S. G.

Kluemper

D. H.

(2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028211

101.

Tong

Chong

Johnson

R. E.

(2019). The indirect relations of workplace incivility with emotional exhaustion and supportive behaviors via self-blame: The moderating roles of observed incivility and trait emotional control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40, 931–946. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2399

102.

Tornau

Frese

(2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62, 44–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x

103.

Tourigny

Baba

V. V.

Wang

(2010). Burnout and depression among nurses in Japan and China: The moderating effects of job satisfaction and absence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2741–2761. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.528656

104.

Trépanier

S. G.

Fernet

Austin

(2013). Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Work and Stress, 27, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.782158

105.

van Jaarsveld

D. D.

Walker

D. D.

Skarlicki

D. P

. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. Journal of Management, 36, 1486–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310368998

106.

Van Wingerden

Van der Stoep

. (2018). The motivational potential of meaningful work: Relationships with strengths use, work engagement, and performance. PLoS One, 13, e0197599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197599

107.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI.

108.

Wharton

A. S.

(1993). The affective consequences of service work: managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888493020002004

109.

Wright

T. A.

Cropanzano

(1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486

110.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

Debebe

(2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25003-6

111.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162

112.

Xue

(2009, January 23–25). An empirical research on the relationship between leadership and personal initiative. In Luo

Gong

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 second international workshop on knowledge discovery and data mining, Washington, DC (pp. 397–400). IEEE Computer Society.