Search results

The purpose of this research is to (1) to identify personality variables that reliably predict verbal rudeness ( i.e by replicating previous findings) and (2) to investigate what personality variables predict more general ugly confrontational behaviors.

In Study 1, the authors used an online survey to collect information regarding individual differences in social desirability, self-esteem, narcissism, blirtatiousness, behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, conventional morality (CM), thin-skinned ego defensiveness (TSED), affect intensity for anger and frustration (AIAF), and verbal rudeness. In Study 2, the authors used a similar online survey to collect the same information, but extended the survey questionnaire to include measures of entitlement, psychopathology, Machiavellianism, and a retrospective checklist of ugly confrontational behaviors.

In Study 1, regression analyses revealed that CM, behavioral inhibition, and behavioral activation reward responsiveness were significant negative predictors of rudeness. AIAF, TSED and behavioral activation drive were significant positive predictors of rudeness. In Study 2, regression analyses revealed that CM was again a significant negative predictor of rudeness. AIAF, and narcissism were significant positive predictors of rudeness. CM also negatively predicted ugly confrontational behaviors, whereas AIAF, blirtatiousness, and Machiavellianism were positive predictors.

Although several measures of aggression exist, the current studies of rudeness and ugly confrontational behavior specifically assess tendencies to abuse strangers. These studies begin to establish a personality profile of the type of person that might abuse strangers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether negative emotions mediate the relationship between supervisor rudeness and subordinates' retaliatory reactions and how the reactions to supervisor rudeness differ between US Americans and Koreans and between in‐group and out‐group supervisors.

A survey involving 197 employees from USA and South Korea. MANCOVA was used to analyze the data.

Employees who were rudely (rather than politely) treated when receiving explanations for organizational decisions were more likely to engage in retaliation. The latter tendency was partially mediated by the negative emotions that the employees felt about their rude treatment. In addition, the rudeness‐retaliation effects became stronger when the supervisor was dissimilar (rather than similar) to them, and the latter two‐way interaction effect was even stronger to those who highly value vertical collectivism. Surprisingly, however, Koreans were more likely to retaliate against their supervisor rather than US Americans.

Previous scenario‐based studies contrasting Koreans and US Americans have yielded findings suggesting that Koreans and US American employees may differ in their responses to supervisory rudeness. Additionally, the tendency of people to be more attracted to similar rather than dissimilar others (consistent with the similarity‐attraction paradigm) suggests that the (dis)similarity of a supervisor is likely to influence the rudeness‐retaliation effect. Future research needs to examine when, how, and why employees retaliate against supervisory rudeness to better understand the retaliation dynamics in organizations.

This is the only study that has examined how, in the context of receiving rude treatment from a supervisor, retaliatory reactions by US American versus Korean employees may differ and why (i.e. via emotional mediating variables), and whether US American‐Korean differences in retaliation under these circumstances are influenced by the supervisor's perceived (dis)similarity.

The emerging literature on computer-mediated communication at the study lacks depth in terms of elucidating the consequences of the effects of incivility on employees. This study aims to compare face-to-face incivility with incivility encountered via e-mail on both task performance and performance evaluation.

In two experimental studies, the authors test whether exposure to incivility via e-mail reduces individual task performance beyond that of face-to-face incivility and weather exposure to that incivility results in lower performance evaluations for third-parties.

The authors show that being exposed to cyber incivility does decrease performance on a subsequent task. The authors also find that exposure to rudeness, both face-to-face and via e-mail, is contagious and results in lower performance evaluation scores for an uninvolved third party.

This research comprises an empirically grounded study of incivility in the context of e-mail at study, highlights distinctions between it and face-to-face rudeness and reveals the potential risks that cyber incivility poses for employees.

The purpose of this paper is to behaviorally validate the Rudeness Scale (RS), a self-report measure of the propensity to verbally abuse strangers, using both a retrospective design (Study 1) and a prospective design (Study 2).

In Study 1, participants (n=280) completed an online survey that contained the RS and a retrospective checklist measure that assessed how often they had engaged in specific confrontational behaviors during the past year. In Study 2 (n=109), participants first completed an online survey that contained the RS and then later completed an experimental session in which they received, and immediately responded to, rude instant messages sent by another “participant.”

In Study 1, a multiple regression analysis revealed that scores on the RS were positively associated (β=0.39) with scores on the retrospective checklist measure of ugly confrontational behaviors. In Study 2, a multiple regression analysis revealed that scores on the RS were positively associated (β=0.30) with the level of “retaliatory” rude behavior the participants displayed in their instant messaging conversation. Together, these findings reveal that people with high RS scores are more likely, first, to have acted in offensive and confrontational ways in the past (Study 1), and second, to act this way in the present (Study 2).

Although previous studies have provided evidence for the convergent validity of the RS and established a preliminary personality profile of rude individuals, the present studies are the first to explore the behavioral validity of the scale.

Incivility is widespread in the workplace and has been shown to have significant affective and behavioral consequences. However, the authors still have a limited understanding as to whether, how and when discrete incivility events impact team performance. Adopting a resource depletion perspective and focusing on the cognitive implications of such events, the authors introduce a multi-level model linking the adverse effects of such events on team members’ working memory – the “workbench” of the cognitive system where most planning, analyses, and management of goals occur – to team effectiveness. The model which the authors develop proposes that that uncivil interpersonal behavior in general, and rudeness – a central manifestation of incivility – in particular, may place a significant drain on individuals’ working memory capacity, affecting team effectiveness via its effects on individual performance and coordination-related team emergent states and action-phase processes. In the context of this model, the authors offer an overarching framework for making sense of disparate findings regarding how, why and when incivility affects performance outcomes at multiple levels. More specifically, the authors use this framework to: (a) suggest how individual-level cognitive impairment and weakened coordinative team processes may mediate these incivility-based effects, and (b) explain how event, context, and individual difference factors moderators may attenuate or exacerbate these cognition-mediated effects.

This research focuses on the distinct group of high-status employees commonly referred to as workplace vigilantes, and conceptually investigates how unethical requests by these individuals impact the behavior and attitude of other employees over time using the social identity theory.

For developing a conceptual model, literature from the domains of social identity, organizational behavior and general management was searched through Google Scholar. To search the literature, some key terms such as “unethical activities”, “Islamic work ethics” and “social identity” were searched and analyzed.

Using the social identity theory, a conceptual process model is developed which suggests that when high-status employees propose unethical requests to employees, individuals with high morality are likely to refuse those unethical requests to protect their self-categorizations. However, taking the unfair advantage of their illegitimate powers, high-status employees are likely to eventually make wrong judgments and give unnecessary punishments to moral employees. It is further argued that consistent victimization is likely to negatively impact the social identity of such employees and leads to irritability in moral employees, particularly when such individuals are unable to get the requisite social support from their leaders.

While a considerable body of literature has focused on the antecedents and consequences of intense unethical business practices and the crucial role of leaders in such activities, limited attention has been given to the role of other employees and how they engage in mild unethical misconduct regularly, which is the key focus of this research. The novel conceptual framework needs to be tested in diverse contexts for further development and validation.

One of the mechanisms by which organizations promote adherence to requirements that employees display appropriate emotions is the use of discipline to punish emotional deviance. This study analyzed selected cases, in unionized settings, where the imposition of discipline had been grieved and culminated in arbitration. Analysis of these cases showed that emotional deviance was most often characterized as rudeness and a lack of courtesy, which took the form of inappropriate displays of anger and hostility, and failure to display interest, concern, and caring. Although some deviance was not excusable, when employee deviance was the result of unprovoked customer emotion this mitigated the assignment of blame. Employees were sometimes found to lack awareness of display rules or how to follow them, and were expected to defuse customer emotion. While discipline is seen as one mechanism for formally controlling emotional deviance, its effectiveness may be limited, particularly in situations where employees are likely to encounter strong negative customer emotion.

Obnoxious behaviour has become endemic in the workplace. Some of the worst offences are: not turning off mobile phones in meetings; leaving a jammed printer, gossiping, and snapping at coworkers. Yet, it is this small stuff that relentlessly grinds down collegial working relationships. Incivility is at the low end of the continuum of workplace abuse. Workplace incivility is not violence or harassment or even open conflict, although it can build up to any of those things. Links between the work environment and indicators of employee loyalty, commitment, and productivity show this is not a “fluff” issue. In addition, a recent study on workplace incivility reveals that rude employees and managers can cost a company millions of dollars a year. This paper will look at a definition of incivility in the workplace, the causes of poor behaviour, the costs to organizations, and what employers can do to help.

Applying social capital and the social exchange theories to customer-to-customer (C2C) interactions, this study aims to propose that interaction quality perceptions affect the customer-to-service provider’s interaction quality perceptions in a prolonged, close-proximity service setting. Examining this exogenous dimension, the study also tests socio-emotional support perception’s mediating effect and customer proactiveness’ moderating effect.

This study adopts and modifies existing general services of C2C interaction dimensions to fit the health-care context. An in-person survey of 192 neurosurgery inpatients and their care-giving companions (both considered health-care customers) provides data to validate the dimensions and test the model. Structural equation modeling and moderated regression test the hypotheses.

Results show that affirmative C2C interactions positively affect the customer’s perceived socio-emotional support, whereas negative C2C interactions show no significant impact. Greater socio-emotional support acuity improves customers’ assurance and empathy quality perceptions about the provider’s service. Customer proactiveness moderates C2C interaction dimensions.

This study extends the research of the C2C interaction to include their effect on service quality perceptions in a prolonged close-proximity service setting. Study results validate C2C interaction’s dimensions specific to an inpatient setting. Finally, this study extends the application of social capital theory and social exchange theory to C2C settings.

Findings emphasize the importance of managing C2C interactions during prolonged, close-proximity service delivery processes to improve customer perceptions of service quality. Results suggest that managers should monitor customer proactiveness to maximize positive C2C interactions’ positive effects while minimizing negative C2C interactions.

Prior service quality studies tend to focus on managing internal resources (staff, processes or physical environment); however, this study examines how the interactions among external resources create a halo effect and impact customers’ service quality perceptions. Results inform methods to improve their quality perceptions by better managing exogenous factors. The study also responds to calls for research on how C2C interactions affect functional service contexts (vs hedonic service contexts).