Journal of Management Development

Jo
ur
na

Work-family Interference, Incivility and Psychological

lo
Distress
fM
Journal: Journal of Management Development

Manuscript ID JMD-06-2017-0207

Manuscript Type: Original Article

an

Keywords: Nigeria., psychological distress,, incivility,, work-family conflict,

ag
em
en
tD
ev
el
op
m
en
t
Page 1 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4 Work-family Interference, Incivility and Psychological Distress
5
6
ur
7
8 Abstract
9
na
10
11 Purpose: This study contributes to the scarce literature at the practical and academic
12
13 juncture of work-family interference, supervisor, coworker incivility and psychological
lo
14
distress in the hospital settings.
15
16 Methods: Applying COR theory, linear (SEM) and non-linear (artificial neural network)
17
fM
18 methods this paper investigate the relationship between aforementioned variables.
19
20 Utilizing survey data from a sample of Nigerian health workers (n = 447).
21
Findings: Results from SEM and ANN revealed that work-family conflict, family-work
an
22
23
24
conflict, supervisor and coworker incivility have positive impacts on psychological distress.
25 Originality: Work-family interference and incivility are pervasive problems in the
ag

26
27 workplace, but the simultaneous nature of this influence are poorly understood. This paper
28
29 provide preliminary support for this interaction, and the implications for making the
em

30
31 workplace better and safer are discussed.
32
33
en

34
35
36 Keywords: work-family conflict, incivility, psychological distress, Nigeria.
37
tD

38
39
40 Overview
41
ev

42 Substantial changes in the workforce demographics and family setup have altered
43
44 our lives in many ways. This is because a greater number of the individuals in the labor
45
el

46 market are from dual-earner families or single-parent families, as opposed to traditional

47
48 two-parent, single income families (Palmer et al., 2012). As such they strive to balance the
op

49 competing demands of work and family roles, which results in conflict between work and
50
51 family roles (Palmer et al., 2012). Such conflict can affect critical finite resources e.g., work
52
m

53 schedules, time, energy, task deadlines, intimacy and family commitments; which may
54
55 eventually causes psychological strain (Hobfoll, 2001).
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 1
 Journal of Management Development Page 2 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
Research has shown that incivility directed toward healthcare staff was costly, in
5 that such behavior cost US$1,235 per nursing assistant and US$1,484 per registered nurse
6
ur
7 in lost productivity (Hutton & Gates, 2008). Workplace incivility is defined as “low-
8
9 intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of
na
10
11 workplace norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, pp. 457). It is
12
13
characterized by impolite, rude, or discourteous actions. Supervisor, and coworker
lo
14 incivility are among the two main sources of incivility. Porath and Pearson (2010)
15
16 estimated that about 96% of the workforce experienced workplace incivility. It would be
17
fM
18 interesting to explore the explanatory nature of incivility when entangled with work-family
19
20 conflict.
21
an
22
23 This paper diagnosed the impact of work-family conflict, family-work conflict,
24
25 supervisor and coworker incivility on psychological distress. Conflict between work-family
ag

26
27 or vice versa may threaten an individual’s ability to meet demands in each domain (Peeters
28
29 et al., 2013), and when entwined with social imbalance e.g., workplace incivility, together
em

30
31 these factors may predict psychological strain. As an artificial intelligence method, artificial
32
neural network (ANN) outsmart other methods like (i.e., Regression and Structural
33
en

34 equation modeling (SEM)), as it can detect both linear and nonlinear relationships with
35
36 high predictive accuracy (Leong et al., 2015).
37
tD

38
39
40 Moreover, ANN requires no multivariate assumptions such as normality, linearity or
41
homoscedasticity to be fulfilled. Even with its capacity ANN is not so ideal for testing causal
ev

42
43 relationships due to it’s black-box operating nature and since linear models (e.g. SEM) have
44
45 the possibilities of over-simplifying the complexities in decision making processes (Sim,
el

46
47 Tan, Wong, Ooi, & Hew, 2014). As such SEM and ANN were employed to boost the
48
op

49 reliability of this investigation. More subtly, the use SEM–ANN approach would
50
51
complement each other (Leong et al., 2015), as the non-compensatory ANN is able to
52
m

complement the weaknesses of compensatory linear SEM (Shmueli & Koppius, 2011).
53
54
55
en

56 Theory and Hypotheses

57
58
t

59
60 2
Page 3 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4 Work-family interference
5
Work-family interference is an emerging area of study that relates to the work-
6
ur
7 family balance of an employee and how that balance, or lack thereof, affects employee
8
9 psychological well-being. Work-family conflict (WFC) occurs when work-life interferes
na
10
11 with family-life, while family-work conflict (FWC) is when family-life interferes with work-
12
13 life (Turner et al., 2014). Alas, valued resources are not always compatible, the demands of
lo
14
15
one domain (e.g., work or family) sometimes require the reallocation of resources that take
16 an individual away from his/her other priorities (Shaffer et al., 2001). COR theory suggests
17
fM
18 that resource loss can lead to further resource loss, to regain lost resources, individuals
19
20 tend to invest more resources; resulting to individuals playing ‘catch-up’ as they work to
21
offset their losses. Without much tautology, role conflict such as WFC or FWC is associated
an
22
23
24
with psychological health and psychological distress; a substantial body of research has
25 supported the notion (e.g., Amstad et al., 2011; Greenhaus et al., 2006; Janzen et al., 2007;
ag

26
27 Michel et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2015; Shockley & Singla, 2011).
28
29 Hindrance stressors produce undesirable consequences in the workplace by decreasing
em

30
31 engagement and increasing burnout (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010). The scarcity of WFC
32
33 and FWC research in West Africa provides additional lacuna for more exploration. Based on
en

34 the aforementioned theoretical arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed.

35
36 Hypothesis 1: WFC is related to psychological distress
37
tD

38 Hypothesis 2: FWC is related to psychological distress

39
40
41
Supervisor and Co-worker’s Incivility
ev

42
43
44 Supervisor’s incivility refers to uncivil behaviors that are instigated by individual’s
45 supervisor, such as hurtful remarks, “snippy” emails, gossip, and shunning (Reio, 2011).
el

46
47 Coworker incivility refers to uncivil behaviors that are instigated by a coworker, such as
48
op

49 negligence to say “please” or “thank you” to fellow coworker, raising one’s voice or ignoring
50
51 others (Pearson et al., 2001). In line with COR theory, incivility reduces the general well-
52
m

53 being of workers, because psychological health requires effort, and effort requires
54
resources (Hobfoll, 1988, 1989). Researchers have proposed several theoretical
55
en

56 frameworks for understanding the effects of workplace incivility (e.g., Hershcovis, &
57
58
t

59
60 3
 Journal of Management Development Page 4 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
Barling, 2010, Keashly & Harvey, 2005; Lim et al., 2008). The common theme linking these
5 framework is the emphasis on stressors, stress, and strains. The quality of relationship
6
ur
7 with coworkers may affect an individual psychological well-being, this is because social
8
9 exclusion is associated with anxiety and depression (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Two,
na
10
11 because a critical part of an individual’s sense of self is their need to belong (Baumeister &
12
13
Leary, 1995).
lo
14
15
16 In a scenario where a coworkers’ behaviors are unpleasant and unwelcoming;
17
fM
18 respect and social support is broken which may manifest emotional exhaustion, and other
19
20 health problems (Kobayashi et al., 2008). Several empirical findings denote that coworker
21
initiated incivility has the tendency to cause psychological distress (Lim, & Lee, 2011),
an
22
23 discomfort and overall happiness (Lim et al., 2008), and decreased mental, emotional, and
24
25 social energy (Giumetti et al., 2013; Sliter et al., 2012) among victims. Unfortunately, there
ag

26
27 is little empirical research linking coworker incivility with supervisor incivility as well as
28
29 WFC in organizations. Based on the aforementioned theoretical arguments, the following
em

30
31 hypotheses are proposed.
32
Hypothesis 3: Coworker incivility is related to psychological distress.
33
en

34
35
36 Supervisors’ legitimate positions allow them to control important workplace
37
tD

38 resources, such as promotions, compensation and task distribution (Rupp & Cropanzano,
39
40 2002), employees expect their superiors to treat them in a respectful manner. Thus, uncivil
41
behaviors from a supervisor may signal to the victims that they matter less, and that their
ev

42
43 position within the company is in jeopardy (Kivimaki et al., 2005), which may have adverse
44
45 effect. For instance, if supervisors publicly embarrass, make fun of, curse at, gossip about,
el

46
47 or ostracize their subordinate, the victims work engaged behaviors and productivity might
48
op

49 decline (Pearson & Porath, 2005). According to COR theory, dealing with uncivil supervisor
50
51
may exhaust ones resources, furthermore, that person may lack the social and emotional
52
m

energy require to perform well in his or her job, resulting in psychological distress (Hobfoll,
53
54 1988, 1989). Based on the aforementioned theoretical arguments, the following hypotheses
55
en

56 are proposed.
57
58 Hypothesis 4: Supervisor incivility is related to psychological distress.
t

59
60 4
Page 5 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
5
6
ur
7
8
9
na
10
11
12
13
lo
14
Work/Family
15
16 Conflict
17
fM
18
19
Family/Work
20 Psychological
21 Conflict
distress
an
22
23
24 Supervisor
25 Incivility
ag

26
27
28
29 Coworker
em

30 Incivility
31 Figure 1: Conceptual Model
32
33
en

34
35
36 Methods
37
Nigeria is a medical brain drained, poor resource and infrastructure, multiethnic,
tD

38
39
40 and culturally laden country. The need for organizational restructuring of the health sector
41 exist. Lasebikan & Oyetunde (2012) suggested that excess workload, frequent night shifts,
ev

42
43 poor wages, doctor/nurse conflict, inadequate personnel predicted burnout among nurses
44
45 in the southwestern part of the country. In similar fashion, I expected WFC, FWC,
el

46
47 supervisor and coworker’s incivility to predict psychological distress. Stress may lead to
48
op

49 fatigue-related errors for health workers who work in a demanding and unsupportive
50
workplace (Lasebikan & Oyetunde, 2012). Data was obtained from healthcare workers in a
51
52 large public hospital in northern Nigeria. The survey questionnaire was accompanied with
m

53
54 a cover letter explaining the voluntary nature of the study.
55
en

56
57
Procedures
58
t

59
60 5
 Journal of Management Development Page 6 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
A temporal separation via time lag was utilized to help minimize the potential risk of
5 common method bias as suggested by (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At time one, seven hundred
6
ur
7 questionnaires were distributed to assess psychological distress. Anonymity and
8
9 confidentiality was also assured to help reduce the potential threat of common method bias
na
10
11 as suggested by (Podsakoff et al, 2003), the health workers were informed that they would
12
13
be receiving another short survey in approximately four weeks. Five hundred and forty
lo
14 valid questionnaires were returned, resulting to 77% response rate. At time two, those
15
16 who completed the survey at time one (identification number assigned enabled the
17
fM
18 researcher to match the respondents) were given a second survey that assessed WFC, FWC
19
20 and incivility from coworker and supervisor. Readers might be puzzled by the order of the
21
data collection, but the intent of this procedure was to separate the predictor and criterion
an
22
23 variables at different times in order to reduce response bias. This procedure might reduce
24
25 temporary effects of mood or very recent personal experiences. Furthermore, four weeks
ag

26
27 lag is too short to have much relevance causal effect in the observed relationships. Finally, a
28
29 single factor model was tested to gauge the potential threat of common bias (See table 1). A
em

30
31 total of four hundred and sixty four questionnaires were returned, resulting to eighty five
32
per cent response rate, at the end only four hundred and forty seven were used for analysis
33
en

34 due to missing data.

35
36 Measures
37
tD

38 WFC was measured with two items borrowed from (Frone, Russell, & Cooper,
39
40 1992). The response choice was 5 (very often) to 1 (never) with high scores indicating
41
greater WFC. The items loaded well (.83, .80); composite reliability (CR) = .80; average
ev

42
43
variance extract (AVE) = .67; Cronbach alpha (α) = .77; mean (M) = 4.6 and standard
44
45 deviation (SD) = .70.
el

46
47 FWC was measured with two items borrowed from (Frone et al., 1992). The
48
op

49 response choice was 5 (very often) to 1 (never), with high scores indicating greater FWC.
50
51 The items loaded well (.99, .58); CR = .87; AVE = .79; α = .78; M = 3.37 and SD = .91.
52
m

Supervisor incivility was measured with four items borrowed from (Sliter et al.,
53
54 2012). The response choice was 5 (very often) to 1 (never), with high scores indicating
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 6
Page 7 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
greater Supervisor incivility. The items loaded well (.57, .99, .96, .99); CR = .94; AVE = .81; α
5 = .93; M = 2.44 and SD = 1.17.
6
ur
7 Co-worker incivility was measured with four items borrowed from (Sliter et al.,
8
9 2012). The response choice was 5 (very often) to 1 (never), with high scores indicating
na
10
11 greater co-worker incivility. The items loaded well (.53, .58, .88, .84); CR = .81; AVE = .53; α
12
13
= .82; M = 3.41 and SD =1.00.
lo
14 Psychological distress was measured with four items adopted from the General
15
16 Health (GH) Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1978). Large-sample analyses (Shevlin & Adamson,
17
fM
18 2005) have suggested a 3-factor model (i.e., anxiety–depression, social dysfunction, and
19
20 loss of confidence), with the items used in the current study constituting the anxiety–
21
depression factor. The response scale was from 5 (much more than usual) to 1 (not at all),
an
22
23 with higher scores indicating greater psychological distress. The items loaded well (.69, .70,
24
25 .83, .85); CR = .86; AVE = .60; α = .85; M = 4.27 and SD = .77.
ag

26
27 Demographics. The current study sample includes 64% (285) female health
28
29 workers, (41%) were between 25 and 34 years old; (35%) were between 35 and 44 years
em

30
31 old, and (23%) were below 24 years old. Sixty three percent of the respondents were
32
33 married, while the rest were single or divorced. Majority of the participants (59%) have
en

34 some college degrees; (31%) have bachelor’s degrees, and (10%) have high school
35
36 diplomas. In terms of work experience, (41%) have worked for the organization between 5
37
tD

38 and 8 years; (23%) have worked for between 1 and 4 years; (18%) worked for above 9
39
40 years and the rest worked for less than 1 year. Forty eight percent (48%) of the
41
respondents have between 1 and 3 dependents; (38%) have between 4 and 6 dependents;
ev

42
43
(11%) reported none and the rest have more than 6 dependents.
44
45
Research Findings
el

46
47
48 The proposed structural model was examined using IBM SPSS AMOS v20, the four
op

49
50 factor model yielded a good fit and one factor model presented yielded a poorer fit. Based
51
52 on this, we concluded that the potential threat of common bias was eliminated (Podsakoff
m

53 et al., 2003). See Table 1. The model fits measures were reasonable and acceptable as
54
55
en

suggested (Wheaton et al., 1977; Bentler, & Bonett, 1980; Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 1984;
56
57 Tanaka, & Huba, 1985; Bollen, 1989a; Bollen, 1989b). Standardized loadings, alphas, CR
58
t

59
60 7
 Journal of Management Development Page 8 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
and AVE were deemed adequate in terms of convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et
5 al., 1998). Table 2 presents bivariate correlations among the study variables.
6
ur
7
8
9
na
10
11
12
13
TABLE 1 Model test for fitness
lo
14
15 Variables X2 df GFI CFI NFI RMSEA X2/df
16
17 One Factor Model 5015.9 103 .50 .14 .14 .327 48.7
fM
18
19 Work-Family Conflict 309.3 93 .92 .96 .95 .072 3.33
20 Family-Work Conflict
21 Co-worker Incivility
an
22 Supervisor Incivility
23 Psychological Distress
24
25
ag

26
27 TABLE 2 Pearson Correlations.
28
29
em

30 Variables 1 2 3 4 5
31
32 1. Work-Family Conflict -
33 2. Family-Work Conflict -.086 -
en

34 3. Coworker Incivility -.108* -.090 -

35
4. Supervisor Incivility -.030 -.035 -.023 -
36
37 5. Psychological Distress .066 .059 .202** .101* -
tD

38
Notes*Significant at the p < 0.05 level; **significant at the p < 0.001 level. (Two-tailed
39
40
41
ev

42
43 Intra-class correlations analysis (ICC) with the aid of two-way mixed and absolute
44
45 agreement definitions, were used to assess the level of agreement between-groups. That is
el

46 whether the groups can be differentiated on the variables under investigation. Single and
47
48 average measures were observed. For WFC (ICC = .62 and .77; p = .00); FWC (ICC = .64 and
op

49
50 .78; p = .00); supervisor incivility (ICC = .78 and .93; p = .00); coworker incivility (ICC = .51
51
52 and .81; p = .00); psychological distress (ICC = .59 and .85; p = .00). These results indicate
m

53
54 that it was appropriate to analyze the data, because it appears that the effects observed in
55
en

the present study are attributable to employee’s perceptions and not necessarily unit
56
57 supervisor’s or coworker’s behaviors in the hospital. The results presented in table 3
58
t

59
60 8
Page 9 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
confirmed that WFC (β = .10, ρ < .05), FWC (β = .09, ρ < .05), Coworker incivility (β = .22, ρ
5 < .001) and supervisor incivility (β = .22, ρ < .05) explains R2 (psychological distress) = 56% of the
6
ur
7 variance. This provides empirical support to hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4.
8
9
na
10
11
12
13
TABLE 3 Maximum likelihood estimates
lo
14
15
16 Exogenous variable Endogenous variable βeta β (t) Confidence interval p
17
fM
18
19 Work-Family Conflict-> Psychological Distress .111 .100(2.21) (.011 to .195) .027**
20
Family-Work Conflict .078 .090(1.99) (-.004 to .185) .046**
21
an
22 Co-worker Incivility .172 .222(4.89) (.127 to .315) ***

23
Supervisor Incivility .074 .112 (2.47) (.021 to .201) .014**
24
25
ag

26 Notes: *Significant at the p < 0.1 level;**Significant at the p < 0.05 level; ***significant at the p < 0.001 level. (Two-tailed)
27
28
29
em

30 ANN multi-layer perceptron utilizing Resilient Backpropagation with Weight

31
32 Backtracking algorithm provided in R (neuralnet package) was employed for the purpose
33 of this study. Logistic function is used as the activation function for both hidden and output
en

34
35 layer of the ANN model and sum squared errors (sse) was used as differentiable error
36
37 function. The number of hidden nodes generated was (4, 2). First, a generalized linear
tD

38
39 model (GLM) function was employed to check the model predictive accuracy. Using
40
41 prediction function in neuralnet GLM predicted a Root Mean Square of Error (RMSE) that is
ev

42
equals to 0.614, neural network predicted the model better with an RMSE of 0.029. The
43
44 synaptic weights of the input nodes on the hidden and output nodes are shown in Figure 2.
45
el

46
47
48
op

49
50
51
52
m

53
54
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 9
 Journal of Management Development Page 10 of 19

1 Jo
2
3
ur
na
4
5
6

lo
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
fM
14
15
an
ag
16
17
18

em
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 en
26
27
28
tD
29
30
31 ev
32
33
34
elo
35
36
37
38
pm
en
Figure 2: Neural network model
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
10
t
46
47
48
Page 11 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
The training process needed 4764 steps until all absolute partial derivatives of the
5 error function were smaller than 0.01. The estimated weights shows that WFC, FWC,
6
ur
7 supervisor and coworker incivility have a significant non-linear effects on psychological
8
9 distress corroborating the findings in SEM. The generalized weights are given for all
na
10
11 covariates within the same range. The distribution of the generalized weights in Figure 3, 4,
12
13
5, and 6 suggests that WFC, FWC, supervisor and coworker incivility have a nonlinear
lo
14 effects as the variance of their generalized weights is greater than one.
15
16
17
fM
18
19
20
21
an
22
23
24
25
ag

26
27
28
29
em

30
31
32
33
en

34
35 Figure 3: WFC and psychological distress
36
37
tD

38
39
40
41
ev

42
43
44
45
el

46
47
48
op

49
50
51
52
m

53
54
55
en

Figure 4: WFC and psychological distress

56
57
58
t

59
60 11
 Journal of Management Development Page 12 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
5
6
ur
7
8
9
na
10
11
12
13
lo
14
15
16
17
fM
18
19
20 Figure 5: Coworker incivility and psychological distress
21
an
22
23
24
25
ag

26
27
28
29
em

30
31
32
33
en

34
35
36
37
tD

38
39
40
41 Figure 6: Supervisor incivility and psychological distress
ev

42
43
44 To bypass the problem of potential bias as a result of model over-fitting, a 10-fold
45
el

46 cross-validation test was carried with a ratio of 75:25 data for training and testing. RMSE
47
48 from ten networks was used to examine the accuracy of the model. The RMSEs are
op

49
50 presented in Table 4, overall the results shows that model predictions are is reliable.
51
52
m

53
54
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 12
Page 13 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
Table 4: Neural network - RMSEs
5
6 Neural network Training Testing
ur
7
8
9
1 0.020 0.025
na
10
11 2 0.016 0.030
12 3 0.016 0.033
13 4 0.025 0.017
lo
14 5 0.022 0.021
15
16 6 0.032 0.015
17 7 0.030 0.015
fM
18 8 0.029 0.011
19 9 0.016 0.024
20
10 0.022 0.021
21
Mean RMSE 0.023 0.021
an
22
23
24 Notes: Input nodes – WFC, FWC, supervisor and coworker incivility; Output nodes – psychological distress
25
ag

26
27
28
29
Implications
em

30
31 Previous incivility and workplace mistreatment studies have focused more on
32
33
employees’ psychological outcomes, such as stress and emotional exhaustion (e.g., Lim et
en

34 al., 2008; Lim & Lee, 2011). It has been consistently shown that incivility and social
35
36 mistreatment can have unwanted effects on employees’ work experiences and outcomes,
37
tD

38 but their combined effects were ignored. Likewise, the majority of WFC and FWC
39
40 researches have focused on the negative effects on employee’s well-being e.g., life
41
satisfaction, burnout, job satisfaction. To date no study has tested their joint effects.
ev

42
43
44
45 The present findings are theoretically and practically important, because the study
el

46
47 has provided a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between WFC, FWC,
48
op

49 supervisor incivility, coworker incivility and psychological distress. The current findings
50
51 showed that WFC and FWC manifested psychological distress among health workers,
52
m

providing support to H1 and H2. This is in line with past studies (Peeters et al., 2013;
53
54 Turner et al., 2014), which is now validated in West Africa, precisely Nigeria. Supervisor
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 13
 Journal of Management Development Page 14 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
incivility and coworker incivility manifested psychological distress, providing support to
5 H3 and H4, in line with previous mistreatment studies (Kobayashi et al., 2008).
6
ur
7
8
9 The findings suggest that resource depletion, as a result of WFC, FWC and incivility
na
10
11 from multiple sources, can affect an employee’s psychological well-being. Thus, resource
12
13
depletion can have a true cost for an organization. Therefore, policy makers are encourage
lo
14 to show a zero-tolerance policy for incivility, punishing incivility and teaching civil
15
16 workplace conduct as a starting point (Pearson, & Porath, 2005). WFC, FWC, supervisor
17
fM
18 and coworker incivility might pose a danger to a health worker, which indirectly affects
19
20 his/her ability to work efficiently; in addition psychological distress might reduce attention
21
to patients, resulting in harmful errors in treatment. Ensuring a high-quality relationship
an
22
23 between supervisors, and subordinates, buffered the effects of WFC on employee
24
25 exhaustion (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005). It would not be wrong to say that the
ag

26
27 absence of supervisor and coworker incivility in the workplace might take off the pressure
28
29 of WFC and/or FWC, which might increase the workers focus on their job.
em

30
31
32
Health organizations might reduce psychological distress resulting from WFC and
33
en

34 FWC, by implementing programs that allow employees to better meet family demands e.g.
35
36 on-site day care facilities, flexible time arrangements, and provide more autonomy (Turner
37
tD

38 et al., 2014). Policy makers are mostly reluctant in adopting such programs, primarily due
39
40 to cost, and the belief that such programs may reduce productivity. But that’s not true,
41
because research has shown that work-life programs positively relates with productivity,
ev

42
43 and the costs associated with such programs can be covered by the increased productivity
44
45 (De Sivatte, Gordon, Rojo, & Olmos, 2015). According to Lo (2003), implementing work-life
el

46
47 friendly policies is a win-win situation for both employers and employees. In the medical
48
op

49 context, such programs could enhance attention to patients, and reduce the number of
50
51
medical errors, although our data did not measure this, but it could be a viable research
52
m

avenue.
53
54
55
en

56 Occasional disappointments at work, and in life, as well as uncivil behaviors are

57
58 virtually unavoidable. Nevertheless, health organization administrators and policy makers
t

59
60 14
Page 15 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
should foster employees’ positive psychology by implementing programs to strengthen it
5 (Jung & Yoon, 2015). Special humorous lectures and operating counseling rooms will
6
ur
7 encourage employees to regard their job from a positive and hopeful perspective (Jung &
8
9 Yoon, 2015). Such programs can be set up to boost the psychological wellbeing of health
na
10
11 workers, as it is anticipated that they would overcome a lot of different challenges.
12
13
lo
14 Nonetheless the results should be interpreted in light of the study’s inherent
15
16 limitations. First, the self-report nature of the data is potentially limiting in that social
17
fM
18 desirability bias. Second, non-experimental nature of the study design, the absence of a
19
20 second study to provide confirmatory support to the current findings. Third, the findings
21
may not be generalizable to other national settings with more effective resource, as well as
an
22
23 regulatory systems that may limit incivility and/or promote work/family balance. Finally,
24
25 this study’s adherence to methodologies established by other scholars, increased our
ag

26
27 confidence in its results (i.e., the use of well-established methods like temporal separation,
28
29 confidentiality, and one factor test). Future studies can extend the model by adding work
em

30
31 overload and customer incivility as regressors, employee cynicism as mediator, sabotage
32
and absenteeism as explanatory variables. Finally, more studies from West Africa region is
33
en

34 needed to provide a coherent reference framework.

35
36
37
tD

38
39
40
41
ev

42
43
44
45
el

46
47
48
op

49
50
51
52
m

53
54
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 15
 Journal of Management Development Page 16 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4 Reference
5 Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for Tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
6
workplace. 452–471.
ur
7
Academy of Management Review, 24,
8 http://www.jstor.org/stable/259136
9 Badran, M.A., & Youssef, C.M. (2015). Psychological capital and job satisfaction in Egypt.
na
10 Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(3), 354 – 370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-
11 2013-0176
12
13
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, NY.
lo
14 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
15 demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180.
16 Doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
17
fM
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks,
18
19 CA: Sage Publications.
20 Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’
21 experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health
an
22 Psychology, 3, 255–269.
23 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
24
25 attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
ag

26 Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
27 covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606
28 Bollen, K.A. (1989a). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
29
em

Bollen, K.A. (1989b). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models.
30
31 Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303–316.
32 Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital, in Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and
33 Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, New York, NY, pp. 241-258.
en

34 Chen, D.J.Q., & Lim, V.K.G. (2012). Strength in adversity: The influence of psychological
35
capital on job search. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(6), 811-839.
36
37 DOI:10.1002/job.1814
tD

38 Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y. (2012). Self- love’s lost
39 labor? A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management Journal,
40 56, 1199–1219. Doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0906
41
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital in organizations and
ev

42
43 institutions: Sociological and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure.
44 American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S12.
45 De Sivatte, I., Gordon, J.R., Rojo, P., & Olmos, R. (2015). The impact of work-life culture on
el

46 organizational productivity. Personnel Review, 44(6), 883 - 905.

47
48
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2013-0226
op

49 Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
50 conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–
51 78.
52
m

Greenhaus, J. H., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2006). Health consequences of work–family
53
54
conflict: The dark side of thework–family interface. Research in occupational stress and
55 well-being, 5, 61–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555 (05)05002-X.
en

56 Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
57 ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
58
t

59
60 16
Page 17 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
Hershcovis, M.S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace
5 aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of
6 Organizational Behavior, 31, 24 – 44. DOI: 10.1002/job.621
ur
7 Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. New York: Hemisphere.
8 Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
9
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
na
10
11 Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress
12 and management in the workplace. Public Administration and Public Policy, 87, 57–80
13 Hutton, S., & Gates, D. (2008). Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct
lo
14 care staff. AAOHN Journal, 56, 168-175.
15
16
Janzen, B. L., Muhajarine, N., & Kelly, I. W. (2007). Work–family conflict, and psychological
17 distress in men and women among Canadian police officers 1. Psychological Reports,
fM
18 100(2), 556–562.
19 Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL-VI user's guide (3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN:
20 Scientific Software.
21
Jung, H.S., & Yoon, H.H. (2015). The impact of employees’ positive psychological capital on
an
22
23 job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel. International Journal
24 of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1135 – 11.
25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0019
ag

26 Kivimaki, M., Ferrie, J., Brunner, E., Head, J., Shipley, M., & Vahtera, J. (2005). Justice at work
27
28 and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees. Archives of Internal Medicine,
29 165, 2245–2251
em

30 Kobayashi, Y., Kaneyoshi, A., Yokota, A., & Kawakami, N. (2008). Effects of a worker
31 participatory program for improving work environments on job stressors and mental
32
health among workers: A controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Health, 50, 455–470.
33
Lasebikan, V.O., & Oyetunde, M.O. (2012). Burnout among Nurses in a Nigerian general
en

34
35 hospital: Prevalence and associated factors. International Scholarly Research Notices,
36 402157, 1-6. Http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/402157.
37 Leong, L.Y., Hew, T.S., Lee, V.H., & Ooi, K.B. (2015). An SEM- Artificial-neural-network
tD

38
analysis of the relationships between servperf, customer satisfaction and loyalty among
39
40 low-cost and full-service airline. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(19), 6620–6634.
41 Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and non-work outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family
support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95-111. Doi:
ev

42
43 10.1037/a0021726.
44
45
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on
el

46 work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. Doi: 10.1037/0021-
47 9010.93.1.95.
48 Lo, S. (2003). Perceptions of work-family conflict among married female professionals in
op

49 Hong Kong. Personnel Review, 32(3) 376 - 390.

50
51
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467679
52 Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011). Antecedents
m

53 of work–family conflict: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5),

54 689–725, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.695
55
en

Palmer, M., Rose, D., Sanders, M., & Randle, F. (2012). Conflict between work and family
56
57
among New Zealand teachers with dependent children. Teaching and Teacher Education,
58 28, 1049- 1058. Doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.002
t

59
60 17
 Journal of Management Development Page 18 of 19

1
2
Jo
3
4
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A
5 study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419. Doi:
6 10.1177/00187267015411001
ur
7 Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of
8 workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive,
9
19(1), 7-12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166149
na
10
11 Peeters, M. C. W., ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Van Steenbergen, E. F. (2013). Consequences of
12 combining work and family roles: A closer look at cross-domain versus within-domain
13 relations. In J. G. Grzywacz & E. Demerouti (Eds.), New frontiers in work and family
lo
14 research (pp. 93–109). New York, NY: Routledge.
15
16
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
17 biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
fM
18 remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
19 Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics,
20 39, 64-71.
21
Reio, T.G. (2011). Supervisor and Coworker Incivility: Testing the Work Frustration-
an
22
23 Aggression Model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1) 54–68. Doi:
24 10.1177/1523422311410648
25 Rupp, D.E., & Cropanzano, R. E. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange
ag

26 relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multi-foci organizational justice.

27
28 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946. Doi: 10.1016/S0749-
29 5978(02)00036-5.
em

30 Sim, J., Tan, G.W., Wong, J.C.J., Ooi, K., & Hew, T. (2014). Understanding and predicting the
31 motivators of mobile music acceptance – A multi-stage MRA-artificial neural network
32
approach. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 569-584,
33
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.005
en

34
35 Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gilley, K. M., & Luk, D. M. (2001). Struggling for balance amid
36 turbulence on international assignments: Work–family conflict, support and commitment.
37 Journal of Management, 27, 99–121. Doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00088-X
tD

38
Shockley, K. M., & Singla, N. (2011). Reconsidering work–family interactions and
39
40 satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 861–886. DOI:
41 10.1177/0149206310394864
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2010). Predictive analytics in information systems research.
ev

42
43 MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553–572.
44
45
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple
el

46 sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance. Journal of

47 Organizational Behavior, 33, 121-139. DOI: 10.1002/job.767
48 Tanaka, J.S. & Huba, G.J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
op

49 GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197–201.
50
51
Turner, N., Hershcovis, M.S., Reich, T.C., & Totterdell, P. (2014). Work–family interference,
52 psychological distress, and workplace injuries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
m

53 Psychology, 87, 715–732. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12071.

54 Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D.F. & Summers, G.F. (1977). Assessing reliability and
55
en

stability in panel models. In Heise, D.R. [Ed.] Sociological methodology 1977. San Francisco:
56
57
Jossey-Bass, 84–136.
58
t

59
60 18
Page 19 of 19 Journal of Management Development

1
2
Jo
3
4
5
6
ur
7
8
9
na
10
11
12
13
lo
14
15
16
17
fM
18
19
20
21
an
22
23
24
25
ag

26
27
28
29
em

30
31
32
33
en

34
35
36
37
tD

38
39
40
41
ev

42
43
44
45
el

46
47
48
op

49
50
51
52
m

53
54
55
en

56
57
58
t

59
60 19