Religious beliefs as a moderator of the relationships between workplace incivility and counterproductive work behaviours

2.1 Workplace incivility and counter-productive work behaviours

Workplace incivility (WPI) occurs when one organizational member engages in uncivil behaviour, such as being rude and disrespectful, addressing others in unprofessional terms [26], making harmful remarks, etc. Incivility is considered a workplace stressor [19]. Stressors are working conditions that lead to negative emotions, including anxiety, depression, aggression, and strain [27–29], whereas mistreatment at work can have wide-ranging costs [30, 19]. Considering incivility as a stressor enables us to explicate its consequential CWBs (behavioural strain) using COR theory by Hobfoll [24]. Indeed, COR theory suggests that “individuals strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect their valued resources and minimize threat of resource loss” [24]. Furthermore, COR theory postulates that stress is created when valued resources are threatened and insufficient resources exist to regain the lost resources [24, 31]. Situational factors (work stressors) can reduce individuals’ resources [32]. Individuals who experience supervisors’ incivility in terms of deliberate ignoring (ostracizing), rudeness, disrespect, insults, and the use of a condensing tone at work experience a lost sense of dignity, respect, and interpersonal relationship quality. This incivility triggers psychological and behavioural responses in terms of dissatisfaction with work, reduced organizational commitment, increased job burnout and greater turnover of valued employees [19, 33]. Moreover, researchers have demonstrated that trivial occurrences of disrespect can have measurable adverse impacts on work-related outcomes [19]. For instance, Skarlick and Folger [34] found a positive relationship between interactional injustice (mistreatment) and retaliation behaviour.

Previous research has confirmed the significant impact of workplace incivility on employee behaviour and other work-related outcomes [35–38]. Workplace incivility can escalate into more intimidating and destructive acts that increase the degree and potential for harm. Researchers have considered WPI as a precursor to more intense and overtly aggressive acts such as CWBs in the workplace [39]. CWBs are viewed as common responses to interpersonal mistreatment [39, 40] in terms of withdrawal (e.g., absence and intention to quit), feelings of anger and workplace deviance [41]. Additionally, some other researchers suggest that incivility at work should not be overlooked since it could potentially spiral into increasingly intense aggressive behaviours of employees [39]. Considering the above, we posit the following:

H1: The experience of WPI is positively related to CWBs directed at the employing organization.

H2: The experience of WPI is positively related to the CWBs directed at individuals or fellow employees.

2.2 Islamic work ethics as a moderator

Based on COR [24], we argue that WPI acts as an environmental stressor that leads to strain. In these situations, the religious belief system – Islam in our case – of an individual who experiences stressors may serve as a coping mechanism. The degree of an individual’s conviction about religious doctrines, as translated into work ethics, may vary. An individual who experiences stress due to WPI may strive to offset it with their available resources. A stressful uncivil work environment may push employees to engage in counterproductive work behaviours that may include diversion of skills and other resources away from achieving organizational goals. However, for many individuals, religion has always been a source of comfort and solace. The ability to exercise patience in expectation of distant rewards from a deity provides an important resource for a believer to handle stressful conditions. The availability of such resources may help to overcome the “weakness of will” that has been suggested as a key influencer in the ethical decision making process [25]. In organizational settings, religious beliefs play a pivotal role in helping employees deal with negative life events (stressors), and religious teachings guide them on how to react in the case of any type of mistreatment at work [42]. Work ethics, as derived from Islamic doctrines (IWEs), encourage employees to avoid negative behaviour, e.g., injustice, deviance, etc., at the workplace [43, 10]. IWEs discourage CWBs, such as theft, sabotage, verbal abuse, lying, committing deliberate errors, and physical assault [6]. Furthermore, IWEs emphasize forbearance during stressful conditions. Employees who follow and practice IWEs more have a sense of responsibility, transparency, and competition, which motivates them to achieve organizational goals in timely manners [45]. IWEs can be considered to be a valuable resource considering that it has been found that IWEs are associated with positive performance, helping behaviour, knowledge sharing and more effective behavioural strategies [17, 46–48]. Considering this, we posit that individuals who have sufficient resources (practice IWE more) in terms of their ability to cooperate, respect others, exercise patience, etc. are better able to deal with workplace incivility and unlikely to show CWBs. That is, we hypothesise the following:

H3: Islamic work ethics attenuate the positive impact of WPI on CWB-O.

H4: Islamic work ethics attenuate the positive impact of WPI on CWB-I.

3.1 Procedures and sample

To empirically validate our hypotheses, applied convenience sampling to collect data through surveys conducted in various hospitals in Pakistan – the 6th most populous country in the world, where 97% of the population considers Islam as their religion. The respondents include doctors, nurses, and administrative hospital staff members who are expected by people worldwide to have better working relationships with each other and with their employer who provides the necessary resources for them to succeed in their jobs – save human lives [49]. Using cross-sectional data may create an issue of common method bias [50]; therefore, we collected our data in two waves that were two months apart. At time 1, paper-based surveys that measured workplace incivility were distributed by hand to 450 service providers, and 279 complete questionnaires were returned. Two months later (i.e., time 2), the second paper-based survey gathering insights about CWBs and IWEs was distributed. A total of 257 valid survey questionnaires were returned. Finally, we received 251 usable questionnaires with a response rate of 54%. Among the 251 respondents, 79% (198) were men whereas 21% (53) were women. Eighty percent (201) were married respondents, and 20% (50) were single. A total of 19.2% (48) of the respondents had an intermediate degree, 28.4% (71) of the respondents had had a bachelor’s degree, and the other 47.6% (132) of the respondents had a master’s degree. The majority of respondents had 5 to 10 years of job experience with an average of 35.3 years (S.D. = 13.3). The occupational status of respondents was categorized as blue collar (i.e., 79.3% (199 respondents)) and white collar (i.e., 20.7% (52 respondents).

3.2 Study measures

The responses to all study items were scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale, and the response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

3.3 Analytical technique

We conducted stepwise, hierarchical moderated multiple regression (HMR) analysis following Cohen et al. [54] with mean centered variables. In the first step, all control variables were added. We added the main effects of workplace incivility and IWEs in the second step. Finally, in the third step, the mean centred interaction terms (workplace incivility×IWE) were added to the regression equation.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Our findings have several theoretical implications. A contribution of our work is that we treated IWEs as a resource, which reduces the negative impact of stressors and makes employees more resilient. According to COR theory, an individual’s response to the threat of resource loss or actual resources (in terms of dignity, respect, and an interpersonal relationship) may vary depending on the individual characteristics and environmental specific resources that are threatened [24]. We show that the ethical values of employees influence how they cope with stressful situations since employees with high positive attitudes towards work are less likely to appraise the uncivilized situation as negative and harmful and thus are less vulnerable to resource loss. Since individuals use ethical principles as a guideline for decision making in business [59], this is an important contribution to the mistreatment literature related to understanding the effects of IWEs on WPI. We argue that employees who follow IWE principles are less bothered by uncivil behaviour and mistreatment and thus may not engage in overtly aggressive and/or violent acts [60, 61]. We also extend the previous literature [18] that states that IWEs protect employees from work stressors and encourage them to behave positively, even if they face extremely stressful situations. However, the findings of our study suggest that IWEs may not play an effective role in moderating the relationships between WPI and CWB-I. We conjecture that employees experiencing supervisors’ incivility at work may show negative and aggressive behaviours. This may lead to incivility spirals at the workplace [62] and the reciprocation of negative behaviour [63].

5.2 Managerial implications

Our study also offers some implications for managers. Incivility at work by executives can severely spoil the reputation of the organization, which may have severe adversarial consequences [64]. Generally, in the business market, people are more likely to do business with those who treat them with respect [8, 65]. Conversely, people are less likely to buy from a company with an employee they perceive as rude and discourteous. Thus, the organization must concentrate on WPI, which is essential for its smooth functioning.

Shedding light on the flipside of this issue, our findings reveal how a low intensity of WPI may relate to the most intense forms of workplace aggression, such as CWBs. Managers are required to help eliminate any form of incivility at work. Managers should evaluate their own behaviours that may contribute to incivility in the workplace. Thus, top management needs to guide their managers to reduce incivility and must emphasize increasing the mutual respect among organizational members. Given the salient role of the IWEs observed in this study, managers must understand the Islamic teachings that specify the norms and conditions for mutual interaction between employers and employees. Considering the rapid growth in workforce diversity, it is difficult to apply the same code of ethics to different cultures [66]. As an expatriate working in multinational organizations, one may have their own beliefs, culture, and norms [66, 67]. Thus, managers working in international companies should emphasize establishing a common understanding of appropriate workplace behaviour.

We have examined whether employees who adhere to IWEs exhibit positive behaviours at work and remain focused on achieving organizational goals, even in an uncivil work environment. Indeed, ethics in Islam cover all aspects of Muslims’ lives, ranging from greetings to interactions with other societies; however, Islam educates that individuals must not only be virtuous, but they must also enjoin virtue. Individuals must not only be ethically healthy, but they must also contribute to the ethical health of society. Therefore, managers of indigenous and multinational companies working in Muslim countries should arrange training and seminars based on IWEs to understand, develop, and promote ethical behaviours in the workplace, regardless of employees’ job positions.

5.3 Limitations and future extensions

Despite this contribution, we note several limitations to this research that provide fruitful directions for future research. First, regarding our empirical context, the hospital industry is considered high intensity and high stress, and the goal of saving lives requires practicing some sort of value systems – IWEs in our case. However, the same may not hold valid in other empirical contexts. Considering a single industry minimizes the generalizability of the study’s results, and even though they will be more interesting and generalizable if we compare the results of this study with those from different industrial contexts.

Second, this study was conducted in Pakistan, which again limits the generalizability of the findings in the Western context. Uncivil behaviour by employees varies from culture to culture [73]. Therefore, the measurement item of workplace incivility should be equivalent to the Pakistani and Western sample. It would be more valuable to replicate these findings in a Western context.

Third, we collect data for all variables from a single source, which may contaminate our data and increase the chances of common method bias concerns. However, to limit the common method variance, following the set forth guidelines by Podsakoff et al. [60], we collected our data with a 2-month gap time to lessen CMV bias. Therefore, the findings of this study are affected little to none by this bias. The existing body of research has shown significant links between religious methods of coping with stressful life events [69]. Accordingly, individuals can be protected from work stressors since IWEs have the capacity and deep roots in an individual’s belief system [18]. Future studies may also examine IWEs as an antecedent of work stressors such as organizational politics, effort-reward imbalance, and emotional labour. In addition, future research may also explore the mediating role of IWEs between leadership styles and work outcomes. Past research suggests that religiosity/spirituality may affect a variety of individual behaviours and work-related outcomes such as physical and mental health, coping, deviant behaviour, commitment, intelligence, personality and performance [56, 71]. Additionally, researchers have demonstrated that religious support can be a valuable source that buffers the effects of life stressors or exerts its own main effects [58]. Future research should investigate the moderating or mediating effects of religiosity between stressors and related outcomes and determine how religion influences individuals’ behaviours at work.