تأثیر نزاکت در محیط کار بر رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار ازطریق مشارکت کاری در دانشگاه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری مدیریت، مربی گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه جامع علمی کاربردی، مرکز فارسان، فارسان، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی مدیریت منابع انسانی، دانشگاه جامع علمی کاربردی، مرکز فارسان، فارسان، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف: امروزه به سختی در موسسات عالی، کارکنان وظایف و مسئولیت‌های خود را بدون درخواست یک نوع تشویق از مدیران، همکاران و دانشجویان انجام می‌دهند. علاوه بر این، بروز رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار در میان بسیاری از کارکنان دانشگاهی و غیر دانشگاهی موسسات عالی رایج است. این رفتارها آیین‌نامه رفتار در دانشگاه را نفی می‌کند. علاوه بر این، مواردی از نگرش ضعیف کاری، غیبت، تاخیر در کار، قلدری، تبعیض جنسیتی، پرخاشگری و رفتار ضد اجتماعی نیز در میان کارکنان موسسات عالی در ایران گزارش شده است. مفهوم نزاکت در محیط کار به طور گسترده در ادبیات علمی مورد بحث قرار گرفته است. برخی از پژوهشگران نزاکت را مخالف بی‌نزاکتی می‌دانند، در حالی که برخی دیگر به افراد اجازه می‌دهند که این اصطلاح را به شیوه خود تفسیر کنند.  علاوه بر این، ناهمگونی در نحوه اندازه‌گیری نزاکت وجود دارد، به طوری که برخی از پژوهش‌ها از مقیاس‌های مدنیت استفاده می‌کنند و برخی دیگر از ابزارهایی برای اندازه‌گیری بی‌نزاکتی استفاده می‌کنند. این عدم اجماع، تعیین معنای دقیق نزاکت در محیط کار و موثرترین روش برای اندازه‌گیری آن را چالش برانگیز می‌کند. بنابراین، پژوهش‌های بیشتری برای ایجاد تعریف و ابزار اندازه‌گیری واضح و توافق شده برای این مفهوم حیاتی مورد نیاز است. در همین راستا، نزاکت در محیط کار نقش مهمی در ارتقای رفاه کارکنان، بهبود نتایج سازمانی و کاهش رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار دارد. پژوهش حاضر، نشان می‌دهد که مجموعه‌ای از ادب کم شدت، مانند احترام، لبخند، عشق، ادب، صمیمیت، صمیمیت، مهربانی و ادب، می‌تواند مشارکت کارکنان (نشاط، فداکاری، و جذب) را تشویق کند و در نتیجه کارکنان را رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار دلسردکند. بنابراین، پژوهش حاضر، بر اساس شکاف در ادبیات پژوهش حاضر، کمتر پژوهشی به مشارکت کاری با نقش میانجی در ارتباط بین نزاکت در محیط کارو رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار پرداخته است. در نتیجه، پژوهش حاضر، با هدف بررسی تاثیر نزاکت در محیط کاربر رفتار انحرافی محیط کار در بین کارکنان دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اصفهان(خوراسگان) و تعیین نقش میانجی مشارکت کاری  در این رابطه انجام می‌شود.
روش: روش پژوهش ازنظر هدف کاربردی است و ازنظر نحوه گردآوری اطلاعات، توصیفی از نوع همبستگی است، جامعه‌ی آماری این پژوهش کارکنان شاغل در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان) به تعداد 660 نفر است که استفاده از فرمول کوکران 242 نفر حجم نمونه انتخاب گردید و افراد نمونه با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری طبقه­ای متناسب با حجم انتخاب شدند. ابزار پژوهش پرسش‌نامه نزاکت در محیط کار اوجلی و همکاران (2021)، پرسش‌نامه رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار پنی و اسپکتور (2005) و پرسش‌نامه مشارکت کاری ساکس و گرومن (2014) بود پس از تدوین طرح مقدماتی پرسش‌نامه تلاش گردید تا میزان روایی و پایایی پرسش‌نامه‌ها تعیین شود. به منظور بررسی روایی محتوایی، پرسش‌نامه‌ها قبل از اجرا با استفاده ازنظرات اساتید و خبرگان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. به منظور بررسی روایی صوری پرسش‌نامه­های مذکور توسط 10 نفر از جامعه آماری پژوهش تکمیل گردید و پس از ویرایش مفهومی برخی از سؤالات، ابزار اندازه­گیری از روایی صوری برخوردار گردید. نتایج تحلیل عاملی تأییدی نشان داد تمامی شاخص­های برازش، سؤال­های بالای 9/0 هستند و این نشان­دهنده مورد قبول بودن گویه­ها است و از سوی دیگر پایایی پرسش‌نامه‌ها با روش آلفای کرونباخ به ترتیب 88/0، 90/0 و 92/0 برآورد شد و تجزیه­وتحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از مدل­سازی معادلات ساختاری انجام گرفت.
نتایج: یافته‌ها نشان داد نزاکت در محیط کاربا رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار رابطه منفی دارد که ضریب تأثیر آن 66/0- بود و مشارکت کاری بر رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار تاثیر منفی دارد که ضریب تأثیر آن 44/0-بود و همچنین نزاکت در محیط کار بر مشارکت کاری تاثیر مثبت دارد که ضریب تأثیر آن 55/0 بود. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که حد پایین فاصله اطمینان برای مشارکت کاری ، به‌عنوان متغیر میانجی بین نزاکت در محیط کار با رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار (0990/0-) و حد بالای آن (0110/0-) است. سطح اطمینان برای این فاصله اطمینان، 95 و تعداد نمونه‌گیری مجدد بوت استراپ 5000 است. با توجه به این‌که صفر بیرون از این فاصله اطمینان قرار می‌گیرد، این رابطه واسطه­ای معنی­دار است؛ بنابراین مشارکت کاری در بین رابطه بین نزاکت در محیط کار با رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار، به‌عنوان متغیر میانجی ایفای نقش می‌کند.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: پژوهش حاضر با هدف تعیین تاثیر نزاکت در محیط کاربر رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار از طریق مشارکت کاری در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اصفهان(خوراسگان) انجام شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد که نزاکت در محیط کاررا بر رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار تأثیر معکوس و معناداردارد. نتایج پژوهش حاضر با یافته‌های پژوهش‌های جعفری و همکاران(2020)؛; سوو و ارسلان(2023) ؛عبدالله و همکاران(2021)، زاهد و نائومان(2023) و اوجلی و همکاران (2021) در بررسی رابطه بین نزاکت در محیط کارو رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار همسویی مستقیم دارد. پژوهش حاضر پیامدهای مهمی برای راهبردهای مداخله‌ای با هدف کاهش رفتار انحرافی در محیط کار دارد. یافته‌های پژوهش حاضر، نشان می‌دهد که ایجاد و حفظ نزاکت فرآیند پیچیده‌ای است که شامل عوامل شخصی، کاری و اجتماعی است که با یکدیگر تعامل دارند. بنابراین، مداخلات نباید صرفاً کارکنان فردی را هدف قرار دهد، بلکه باید گروه‌ها و سازمان‌ها را نیز دربرگیرد. در حالی که برخی از ویژگی‌ها یا جهت‌گیری‌های شخصیتی ممکن است به کارکنان در مدیریت استرس محیط کار کمک کند، تحلیل پژوهش حاضر،  نشان می‌دهد که فرهنگ سازمانی که برای نزاکت ارزش قائل است در تشویق چنین رفتاری در میان کارکنان مؤثرتر است. بنابراین، ارزیابی فرهنگ‌های سازمانی و شناسایی فرهنگ‌هایی که احتمال بیشتری برای تحمل رفتارهای غیرمؤدبانه و پرخاشگرانه دارند و برای ترویج نزاکت مداخله می‌کنند، بسیار مهم است برنامه‌های مداخله باید جامع و برای روش‌های نوآورانه، از جمله گفتار آگاهانه، باز باشد. پژوهش‌ها نشان می‌دهد که نزاکت پیش‌بینی‌کننده نتایج مثبت برای کارکنان است و می‌تواند از طریق برنامه‌های مختلف افزایش یابد. مردانگی در مقابل زنانگی؛ سازمان‌هایی که برای مردانگی ارزش قائل هستند، ممکن است رقابت‌پذیری را بر اجماع اولویت دهند و همکاری و نگرانی کمتری برای رفاه دیگران نشان دهند. از سوی دیگر، سازمان‌هایی که برای زنانگی ارزش قائل هستند ممکن است اجماع‌گرا، متواضع‌تر و مشارکت‌کننده‌تر باشند و هنجارهای فرهنگی قوی‌تر مدنیت را در یک محیط کمتر سلسله مراتبی، تحت سلطه مردان یا رقابتی ترویج کنند.  به‌علاوه، ممکن است تفاوت‌هایی در رفتار مدنی در محل کار در میان کارکنان با فرهنگ‌های ملی مختلف وجود داشته باشد که دلیل آن تفاوت در هنجارهای ضمنی برای بیان اختلاف بین فرهنگ‌های جمع‌گرایانه و فردگرا است، در محیط‌های کاری متنوع امروزی، درک این تفاوت‌ها می‌تواند ارتباطات و همکاری بین کارکنان را افزایش دهد. در نهایت، تحقیقات تجربی باید تأثیر بالقوه پاسخ‌های رهبران را در مواجهه با رفتار غیرمدنی کارکنان بررسی کند، زیرا این واکنش‌ها توسط همکاران مشاهده می‌شوند و ممکن است بر نتایج بلندمدت تأثیر بگذارند، مانند به عنوان ادراک از عدالت سازمانی است. به طور خلاصه، این مطالعه تاکید می کند که ترویج مدنیت در کار می تواند منجر به سازمان های سالم تر و کارگران شادتر شود (دی فابیو و همکاران، 2016)، در حالی که از هدر رفتن سرمایه انسانی جلوگیری می‌کند.
تقدیر و تشکر: از سردبیر محترم فصلنامه مطالعات د ین، معنویت و مدیریت و سایر مشارکت‌کنندگان در این پژوهش قدردانی می‌نمایم.
تضاد منافع: هیچ تضاد منافعی در این پژوهش وجود ندارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Civility in the Workplace on Deviant Behaviors in the Workplace through Work Participation in the University

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Ghaedamini Harouni 1
  • Maryam Karimzadeh Mostafaabadi 2
1 PhD in management, Instructor, Department of Management, University of Applied Sciences of Farsan Center, Farsan, Iran.
2 Bachelor's student, Human Resources Management, University of Applied Sciences, Farsan Center, Farsan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction and objectives: Today, hardly in higher institutions, employees perform their duties and responsibilities without asking for some kind of encouragement from managers, colleagues, and students. In addition, the occurrence of deviant behavior in the workplace is common among many academic and non-academic employees of higher institutions. These behaviors negate the code of conduct in the university. In addition, cases of poor work attitude, absenteeism, tardiness, bullying, gender discrimination, aggression, and anti-social behavior have also been reported among the employees of higher institutions in Iran. The concept of civility in the workplace has been widely discussed in the related scientific literature. Some researchers see civility as the opposite of incivility, while others allow people to interpret the term in their way. In addition, there is heterogeneity in how civility is measured, with some studies using civility scales and others using tools to measure incivility. This lack of consensus makes it challenging to determine the exact meaning of civility in the workplace and the most effective way to measure it. Therefore, more research is needed to develop a clear and agreed-upon definition and measurement tool for this critical concept. In this regard, civility in the workplace plays an important role in promoting the welfare of employees, improving organizational results, and reducing deviant behaviors in the workplace. The present research shows that a set of mild civilities, such as respect, smile, love, civility, intimacy, cordiality, kindness, and civility can encourage employees' participation (joyfulness, dedication, and attraction) and as a result deviant behavior discourages employees in the workplace. Therefore, taking into account the gap in the current research literature, it is clear that less research has addressed work participation with a mediating role in the relationship between politeness in the workplace and deviant behavior in the workplace. Thus, the current research aims to investigate the effect of civility in the user environment of deviant behavior in the workplace among the employees of Isfahan Islamic Azad University (Khorasgan branch) and to determine the mediating role of work participation in this regard.
Method: The research method is practical in terms of the purpose and terms of the method of data collection, it is descriptive of the correlation type, the statistical population of this research is 660 employees working in Isfahan Islamic Azad University (Khorasgan), and using Cochran's formula, 242 people were selected as a sample size. The sample people were selected using a stratified sampling method according to the volume. The research tool was the politeness questionnaire in the work environment by Ojali et al. (2021), the deviant behaviors questionnaire in the workplace by Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005), and the work participation questionnaire by Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). To determine and check content validity, the questionnaires were reviewed using the opinions of professors and experts before implementation. To check the formal validity of the aforementioned questionnaires, 10 people from the statistical population of the study completed it and after conceptual editing of some questions, the measurement tool was given formal validity. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that all the fit indices of the questions were above 0.9 and this indicates the acceptability of the items. Therefore the reliability of the questionnaires with Cronbach's alpha method was 0.88 and .090 and 0.92 were estimated and data analysis was done using structural equation modeling.
Results: The findings showed that civility in the work environment has a negative relationship with deviant behaviors in the work environment, whose influence coefficient was 0.66, and work participation hurts deviant behaviors in the work environment, whose influence coefficient was 0.44, and also civility in the work environment work participation has a positive effect, the coefficient of which was 0.55. Moreover, the results showed that the lower limit of the confidence interval for work participation, as a mediating variable between civility in the work environment and deviant behavior in the work environment was (0.0990) and its upper limit was (0.0110). The confidence level for this confidence interval was 95 and the number of bootstrap resampling method was 5000. Considering that zero is outside this confidence interval, this relationship is a significant mediator; therefore, work participation plays a role as a mediating variable in the relationship between civility in the workplace and deviant behavior in the workplace.
Discussion and Conclusions: The present study was conducted to determine the effect of civility in the user environment of deviant behaviors in the workplace through work participation in Isfahan Islamic Azad University (Khorasgan branch). The findings showed that civility in the work environment has an inverse and significant effect on deviant behavior in the work environment. The results of the present study with the findings of Jafari et al. (2020); Soo and Arslan (2023); Abdullah et al. (2021), Zahid and Nauman (2023) and Ojali et al. (2021) have a direct alignment in examining the relationship between politeness in the workplace and deviant behavior in the workplace. The current research has important implications for intervention strategies aimed at reducing deviant behavior in the workplace. The findings of the current research showed that creating and maintaining decency is a complex process that includes personal, work, and social factors that interact with each other. Therefore, interventions should not only target individual employees but also include groups and organizations. While some personality traits or orientations may help employees manage workplace stress, the analysis of the current research shows that an organizational culture that values ​​civility is more effective in encouraging such behavior among employees. Therefore, it is important to assess organizational cultures and identify those that are more likely to tolerate impolite and aggressive behavior and to intervene to promote civility. Intervention programs should be comprehensive and open to innovative methods, including conscious speech. This research showed that civility predicts positive outcomes for employees and can be increased through various programs. Masculinity versus femininity, i.e., organizations that value masculinity may prioritize competitiveness over consensus and show less cooperation and concern for the well-being of others. On the other hand, organizations that value femininity may be more consensual, humble, and cooperative and promote stronger cultural norms of civility in a less hierarchical, male-dominated, or competitive environment. In addition, there may be differences in workplace civil behavior among employees of different national cultures due to differences in implicit norms for expressing differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures. In today's diverse workplace, understanding these differences can improve communication and increase cooperation between employees. Finally, empirical research should examine the potential impact of leaders' responses to employees' uncivil behavior, as these responses are observed by co-workers and may affect long-term outcomes, such as perceptions of organizational justice. In summary, this study emphasizes that promoting civility at work can lead to healthier organizations and happier workers (Di Fabio et al., 2016) while preventing the wastage of human capital.
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Studies in Religion, Spirituality & Management, and the participants in the study.
Conflict of Interests: There is no conflict of interest in this research.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Civility in the workplace
  • Deviant behavior in the workplace
  • Work participation
  • Social exchange theory

مراجع

  1. عباس پور، عباس؛ نیک مراد، زهره؛ طاهری، مرتضی و حمید رحیمیان (1401). «کنترل عوامل مؤثر بر رفتارهای انحرافی کاری کارکنان اداری دانشگاه‌ها». فصل‌نامه مطالعات رفتار سازمانی، 11(44)، 69-91.
  2. قائدامینی هارونی، عباس؛ ابراهیم‌زاده دستجردی، رضا و علیرضا ابراهیم‌پور (1403) «طراحی الگوی مدیریت رفتارهای انحرافی در محیط کار در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی». فصل‌نامه پژوهش های راهبردی مسائل اجتماعی ایران، 11(36)، 81-108.
  3. Abdullah, N.-A., Nasruddin, A. N. M., & Mokhtar, D. M. (2021). The relationship between personality traits, deviant behaviour and workplace incivility. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(3), 169–184.

https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i3/8465.

  1. Abid, G., Sajjad, I., Elahi, N. S., Farooqi, S & Nisar, A. (2018). The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement: the mediating role of thriving at work. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1-19.

https//doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1493712

5. Achmadi, Hendryadi & Amelia Oktrivina (2023). Developing employees’ job embeddedness through workplace civility and social cohesion: The role of work overload. Cogent Business & Management, 10:3, 2262228, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2262228.

  1. Adekanmbi, F. P. & Ukpere, W. I. (2019). The relationship between work stress and workplace deviant behaviours in the Nigerian banking industry. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8(1), 1190-1202.
  2. Adeoti, M. O., Shamsudin, F. M., & Mohammad, A. M. (2021). Opportunity, job pressure and deviant workplace behaviour: Does neutralisation mediate the relationship? A study of faculty members in public universities in Nigeria. European Journal of Management and Business Economics 30(2), 170–190.
  3. Ahmed Elsayed, W., Mahmoud Hassona, F., Mohamed Nageeb, S., and Mohamed, E. S. (2021). Leadership competencies, workplace civility climate, and mental well-being in El-Azazi Hospital for Mental Health. Egypt. J. Health Care 12, 298–313. doi: 10.21608/ejhc.2021.150275.
  4. Ahmed, U., Phulpoto, W., Umrani, W. A. & Abbas, S. I. (2015). Diving deep in employee training to understand employee engagement. Business and Economics Journal, 7(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.4172/2151-6219.1000199.
  5. Akhigbe, O. J., & Sunday, P. I. (2017). Organisational Trust and Workplace Deviant Behaviour in Higher Institutions in Rivers State. 5(10), 48–62.
  6. Akram, A., Muhammad, A., & Muhammad, H. (2013). Impact of job autonomy on work engagement: the mediating role of job crafting in universities of Pakistan. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 3(1), 31-44.
  7. Alam, M., Fozia, G. U. L., and Imran, M. (2021). The impact of Ethical Leadership & Civility on organizational commitment: the mediating role of work engagement. Arts Soc. Sci. 8, 173–188. doi: 10.46662/jass-vol8-iss1-2021(173-188).
  8. Alzhrani, F. M.., almalki, A. M.., Alkabkaby, S. O. J.., Alzahrani, ‏Saeed H.., Faqihi, A. J. E., Mutawwam, A. A.., ALbishry, maged A. A.., Nawaf Mohammed Salem Al-Otaibi, Asrar Mohammed Attar, Ibrahim Hamad Halosh, & Mogeb Motlaq Duyrij Altoom. (2023). The Relationship Between Innovative Work Behavior And Workplace Civility From The Perspective Of Healthcare Professionals. Migration Letters, 20(S1), 2975–2987. Retrieved from:

https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/9045.

  1. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of management review, 24(3), 452-471.
  2. Anitha J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-323.
  3. Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 46-56.
  4. Arzoumanian, C. M. (2018). Psychological contracts and their effect on employee engagement. (Unpublished master’s thesis) American University of Beirut, Lebanon.
  5. Ayob, A. L., & MatNor, N. (2019). Predictors of employee engagement in Malaysia, and the moderating effects of job demands and total reward. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 33-49. doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.s2.3.
  6. Baharom, M. N., Sharfuddin, M. D. K. B., Iqbal. J. (2017). A systematic review on the deviant workplace behaviour. Review Public Administration Management 5(3), 1-8. doi:10.4172/2315-7844.1000231.
  7. Baig, F., & Ullah, Z. (2017). Curing workplace deviance through organisational justice in the mediating role of job satisfaction: The case of NGOs in Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 3(1), 1-21.
  8. Bailey C, Madden A, Alfes K, Fletcher L, Robinson D, Holmes J, Buzzeo J, Currie G. (2015)Evaluating the evidence on employee engagement and its potential benefits to NHS staff: a narrative synthesis of the literature. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; Jun. PMID: 26086062. DOI:3310/hsdr03260.
  9. Bakare, K. A. (2021). Bureaucracy and corporate practice in Nigerian universities. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), 20–36.
  10. Bakare, M., Salisu, U., Bugaje, I., & Abubakar, H. (2022). Workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behaviour among employees of Federal University of Gusau, Zamfara state: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Sokoto Journal of Management Studies, 32(3), 65–84.
  11. Barakat, S. R., Isabella, G., Boaventura, J. M. G., & Mazzon, J. A. (2016). The influence of corporate social responsibility on employee satisfaction. Management Decision, 54(9), 2325-2339.
  12. Baran M, Sypniewska B. (2020) The Impact of Management Methods on Employee Engagement. Sustainability.; 12(1):426.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010426.

  1. Belton, L. W., and Dyrenforth, S. R. (2007). Civility in the workplace. Measuring the positive outcomes of a respectful work environment. Exec. 22, 40–43.
  2. Bibi, Z., Kareem, J., & Din, S. (2013). Workplace incivility and counterproductive behaviour: moderating role of emotional intelligence. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 28(2), 317-334.
  3. Bock, E. (2018). Workplace civility increases productivity. Retrieved on June 31, 2023 from:

https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2018/08/10/workplace-civility-increases- productivity

  1. Bollin, A. & Heatherly. B. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: the relationship between bad attitudes and bad behaviour. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 405-418.
  2. Campbell, L. A., LaFreniere, J. R., Almekdash, M. H., Perlmutter, D. D., Song, H., Kelly, P. J., et al. (2021). Assessing civility at an academic health science center: implications for employee satisfaction and well-being. PLoS One 16:e0247715. doi: 1371/journal.pone.0247715.
  3. Campbell, L. A., LaFreniere, J. R., Almekdash, M. H.,Perlmutter, D. D., Song, H., Kelly, P. J., Keesari, R., Shannon, K. L., & Ren, T. (2021). Assessing civility at an academic health science center: Implications for employee satisfaction and well-being. PLOS ONE, 16(2), e0247715.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247715

  1. Chandolia, E., and Anastasiou, S. (2020). Leadership and conflict management style are associated with the effectiveness of school conflict management in the region of Epirus, NW Greece. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 10, 455–468. doi: 10.3390/ ejihpe10010034.
  2. Clark C. M. (2020). Workplace civility index: a reliable tool for measuring civility competence in the workplace nursing education research conference 2020: Transforming nursing education through evidence generation and translation. Washington, DC: Sigma Theta Tau International. National League for Nursing.
  3. Clark, O. L. & Walsh, B. M. (2016). Civility climates mitigates deviant reaction to organizational constraints. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 31(1), 186-201.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0021.

  1. Corcoran, K. E. (2013). Divine exchanges: Applying social exchange theory to religious behaviour. Rationality and Society, 25(3), 335–369.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463113492306

  1. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Laughout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology, 6(1) 64–80.
  2. Cortina, L.M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75.
  3. Costa, V. F. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior: its interaction with organizational values and job satisfaction. [Comportamento de cidadania organizacional: sua interação com os valores organizacionais e a satisfação no trabalho] Universidade Federal de Santa Maria]. Available at:

https://repositorio.ufsm.br/bitstream

  1. Crewe, S., & Girardi, A. (2020). Nurse managers: Being deviant to make a difference. Journal of Management & Organisation, 26(3), 324-339.
  2. Daniel, D. M. (2009). Civility in the workplace: creating healthy and safe work environments. (Unpublished master dissertation), Athabasca University.
  3. Day, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2014). The good and bad of working relationships: Implications for burnout. In M. P. Leiter, A. B. Bakker, & C. Maslach (Eds.), Burnout at work: A psychological perspective(pp. 56–79). Psychology Press.
  4. Decuypere, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2019). Leadership and work engagement: Exploring explanatory mechanisms. German Journal of Human Resource, 00(0), 1–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219892197

  1. Di Fabio A, Kenny ME. (2018) Academic Relational Civility as a Key Resource for Sustaining Well-Being. Sustainability; 10(6):1914.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061914.

  1. Di Fabio, A. (2024). Relational civility in the workplace: Actuality in research and measurement: A focus on discrimination. Counseling: Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 17(1), 17–29. DOI: 10.339/fpsyg.2016.00890.
  2. Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Assessing workplace relational civility (WRC) with a new multidimensional "Mirror" measure. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 890.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00890

  1. DiFabio, A. & Gori, A. (2016). Assessing workplace relational civility (WRC) with a new multidimensional “mirror” measure. Frontier Psychology, 7(6), 1-12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00890.
  2. Din, M. Z., Arif, A. & Shabbir, M. A. (2017). The impact of workplace incivility on employee absenteeism and organization commitment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Studies, 7(5), 205- 221.
  3. Donald E. Frederick & Tyler J. VanderWeele | (2020) Longitudinal metaanalysis of job crafting shows positive association with work engagement, Cogent Psychology, 7:1, 1746733, DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2020.1746733.
  4. Eghlidi, F. F. & Karimi, F. (2016). The relationship between components of work engagement and organizational commitment of female employees of university. International Journal of Human Resource Studies 6(3), 63-73.
  5. Erum H, Abid G, Contreras F, Islam T. Role of Family Motivation, Workplace Civility and Self-Efficacy in Developing Affective Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2020; 10(1):358-374.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010027.

  1. Everton, W. J., Jolton, J. A. & Mastangelo, P. M. (2007). Be nice and fair or else: understanding reasons for employees’ deviant behaviours. Journal of Management Development, 26(2), 117-131.
  2. Fong-Yi, L., Hui-Chuan, T., Szu-Ch, L., & Yu-Chin, L. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Sage Open, 34(1), 1-11.
  3. Fountain,Lee Thornton(2018)Mentoring Elements that Influence Employee Engagement.has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.
  4. Gaëtane, C, Stinglhamber, F. and Luypaert, G. (2014), "The impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being: The role of work-related social support", Career Development International, 19 (7), 813-835.

https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114.

  1. Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Singh, A. (2016). Support at work to fuel engagement: a study of employees of Indian banking sector. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 5(2), 1-10. DOI:4018/IJPMPA.291697.
  2. Gilin Oore D., Leblanc D., Day A., Leiter M. P., Spence Laschinger H. K., Price S. L., et al. (2010). When respect deteriorates: incivility as a moderator of the stressor–strain relationship among hospital workers. J. Nurs. Manag. 18, 878–888. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01139.x.
  3. Giumetti, G.W., McKibben, E.S., Hatfield, A.L., Schroeder, A.N. and Kowalski, R.M. (2012), “Cyber incivility@ work: the new age of interpersonal deviance”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (3), 148-154.
  4. Gori A, Topino E. (2020) Predisposition to Change Is Linked to Job Satisfaction: Assessing the Mediation Roles of Workplace Relation Civility and Insight. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.; 17(6):2141.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062141.

  1. Guo, J., Qiu, Y., & Gan, Y. (2022). Workplace incivility and work engagement: The chain mediating effects of perceived insider status, affective organisational commitment and organisational identification. Current Psychology, 41(4), 1809-1820.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00699-z.

  1. Gupta, A., and Singh, P. (2021). Job crafting, workplace civility and work outcomes: the mediating role of work engagement. Global Knowledge Memory Commun 70, 637–654. doi: 1108/GKMC-09-2020-0140.
  2. Hanif, F., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., & Hussain, K. (2015). The role of employee engagement in work- related outcomes. Advances in Economics and Business,3(6), 204-214.

https://doi.org/10.13189/aeb.2015.030602.

  1. Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(7), 268-279.
  2. Hershcovis, M. S., Neville, L., Reich, T. C., Christie, A. M., Cortina, L. M., and Shan, J. V. (2017). Witnessing wrongdoing: the effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 142, 45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.006.
  3. Homans, G C. (1958). Social behaviour as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
  4. Homans, George C. (1961). Social Behaviour. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
  5. Igbe, E. J., Okpa, T. J., & Aniah, A. E. (2017). Working conditions and deviant behaviour of employees in the University of Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 22(7), 74–83.
  6. Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., & Pluut, H. (2015). Intraindividual models of employee well-being: What have we learned and where do we go from here? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24(6), 827-838.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1071422.

  1. Jafri, M. A., Hafeez, M., Maeenuddin, G., & Hamza, M. Q. (2020). Impact of workplace incivility and organisational injustice on counterproductive work behaviour. International Journal of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, 11(1), 2716–2727.
  2. Javed, R., Amjad, M., Faqeer-Ul-Ummi, S., & Bukhar, R. (2014). Investigated factors affecting employee workplace deviant behavior. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 9(3), 1073-1078.
  3. Karuppasamy, P. S., & Prabakar, S. (2016). A study on employee engagement in public sector undertaking among managerial employees. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(11), 899-906.
  4. Katyayani, J., & Rani, T. N. N. (2018). A study on employee engagement among the employees of power sector with special reference to APSPDCL. International Education and Research Journal, 2(7), 86-88.
  5. Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organisational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behaviour for sustainable organisations. Sustainability, 9(2), 205.
  6. Laschinger, H. K. S., and Read, E. A. (2016). The effect of authentic leadership, person- job fit, and civility norms on new graduate nurses' experiences of coworker incivility and burnout. Nurs. Adm. 46, 574–580. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000407.
  7. Leiter, M. P., Nicholson, R., Patterson, A., and Laschinger, H. (2011). Workplace relationships as demands and resources: a model of burnout and work engagement. Ciencia Trabajo. 14, 23–30.
  8. Liu, L. (2020). Effects of health-promoting leadership on work engagement through employee healthy, workplace civility, workplace ostracism, moderated by employability national institute of development. Administration Available at:

https://repository.nida. ac.th/handle/662723737/6195

  1. Low, Y. M., Sambasivan, M., & Ho, J. A. (2019). Impact of abusive supervision on counterproductive work behaviour of nurses. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(2), 250-278 doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12234.
  2. Lv, Y., Liu, X., Li, G., and Choi, Y. (2020). Managerial pro-social rule breaking in the chinese organizational context: conceptualization, scale development, and double-edged sword effect on employees’ sustainable organizational identification. Sustainability 12:6786. doi: 3390/su12176786.
  3. Mawdsley, J. K., & Somaya, D. (2016). Employee mobility and organisational outcomes: an integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 85-113.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315616459.

  1. Meseguer-de-Pedro, M., García-Izquierdo, M., Fernández-Valera, M. M., & Soler-Sánchez, M. I. (2019). The role of resilience between workplace bullying and health: A mediational analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 177-182.

https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a16.

  1. Montalvo, L. (2014). Civility and incivility between nurses and administrators: a model to drive successful health care outcomes in the Department of Veterans Affairs. University of Maryland University College.
  2. Muafi, (2011). Causes and consequence deviant workplace behavior. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2(2), 123-126.
  3. Nagib, R. M., El-said, H. D. A., & Zaki, S. M. (2021). Effect of occupational adjustment on nurse’s counterproductive work behaviour and job burnout. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal, 9(24), 51–61. Retrieved from:

http://www.arabimpactfactor.com/9/24/ paper.pdf

  1. Nunkoo, R. (2016). Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents ’ attitudes to tourism. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 588–596.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30303-3.

  1. Obalade G. O., & Mtembu V. (2023). Effect of organisational justice on workplace deviance in Nigerian public universities. Acta Commercii 23(1), a1091.
  2. Ojeleye, C. I., Ojeleye, Y. C., Abdullahi, M., & Salaudeen, J. (2021). Effect of entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial guidance and counseling on entrepreneurial intentions among students of Federal College of Education (Technical) Gusau. Gusau International Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(3), 41–57.
  3. Ojeleye, Y. C., & Bakare, M. (2020). Transformation leadership and employee engagement: moderating role of organisational trust in confectioner industry. International Journal of Intellectual Discourse, 3(1), 2–16. Retrieved from:

https://ijidjournal.org/index.php/ijid/article/view/5

  1. Ojeleye, Y. C., & Jada, R. (2022). Job autonomy and employee engagement in Nigeria: The role of job satisfaction. Mkar Journal of Sociology, 2(1), 61–71.
  2. Ojeleye, Y. C., Ojeleye, C. I., Bakare, M., & Abdullahi, M. (2021). Work Engagement as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Workplace Civility and Workplace Deviant Behaviour: A Proposed Framework. 1st Faculty of Management and Social Sciences International Conference, Federal University of Gusau, Zamfara State. Gusau. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350631925%0AWork

  1. Ojeleye, Y. C., Ojeleye, C. I., Karem, R. F., & Abdullahi, A. (2023). Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions among Nigerian students: Moderating role of perceived institutional support. Oeconomica Jadertina, 13(1), 19–34.

https://doi.org/10.15291/oec.4139

  1. Onoyase, A. (2019). Prevalence of sexual harassment of female students of tertiary education in Taraba state , north east Nigeria: implications for counselling. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 77–83.

https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p77

  1. Osatuke, K., Leiter, M., Bolton, L., Dyrenforth, S. & Ramsel, D. (2013). Civility, respect and engagement at the workplace (CREW): a national organization development program at the department of veteran’s affairs. Journal of Management Policies and Practices, 1(2), 25-34. DOI:1177/0021886309335067.
  2. Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., and Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the workforce (CREW) nationwide organization development intervention at Veterans health administration. Appl. Behav. Sci. 45, 384–410. doi: 10.1177/0021886309335067.
  3. Patro, C. S. (2013). The Impact of Employee Engagement on Organization’s Productivity. In 2nd International Conference on Managing Human Resources at the Workplace (pp. 1-9). SDMIMD.
  4. Peng X. (2023)Advancing Workplace Civility: a systematic review and meta-analysis of definitions, measurements, and associated factors. Front Psychol. Nov 9;14:1277188. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1277188.
  5. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity y. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 26, 777–796.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336.

  1. Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., and Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Appl. Psychol. 100, 1527–1541. doi: 10.1037/apl0000016.
  2. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviour s: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
  3. Rogojan, P. T. (2009). Deviant workplace behavior in organizations: antecedents, influences, and remedies (Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wien, Austria).
  4. Saeidnia, S. A., & Lang, A. (2017). The Human Condition. Macat Library: London

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912281824.

  1. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.

  1. Sarangi, Pratima. Bhagirathi Nayak. (2016) Employee Engagement and its impact on organizational success- a study in manufacturing company, India. IOSR Journal of business and Management. 18(4):52-57. DOI: 9790/487X-1804015257.
  2. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  3. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of short questionnaire with a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

  1. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

  1. Scott, K. (2015). Toxic employees confidently pump out the work while obeying the rules, study finds. Retrieved 3 June, 2023 from.
  2. Shafique, I., Qammar, A., Kalyar, M. N., Ahmad, B., & Mushtaq, A. (2020). Workplace ostracism and deviant behaviour among nurses: a parallel mediation model. Journal of Asian Business Studies, 2(3).

https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2020-0096

  1. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C. & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (13), 2608-2627. DOI:10.1080/09585192.2012.74433.
  2. Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (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 (1), 121-139.
  3. Sowe, S., & Arslan, M. (2023). Exploring the impact of workplace incivility on employee counterproductive work behaviour through the mediating role of turnover intention: Evidence from the Gambia and Ghana. International Journal of Organisational Leadership, 12, 1–21.

https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2023.60346

  1. Tarkang Mary, M. E. M., & Ozturen, A. (2019). Sustainable ethical leadership and employee outcomes in the hotel industry in Cameroon. Sustainability, 11(8), 2245.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082245

  1. Teo, S. T., Bentley, T., & Nguyen, D. (2020). Psychosocial work environment, work engagement, and employee commitment: A moderated, mediation model. International Journal of Hcpitality Management, 88, 102415.
  2. Toscano, F., Giusino, D., and Rahimi Pordanjani, T. (2020). Revisiting the women workplace culture scale: validation and psychometric properties of a three-factor structure in an Iranian study sample. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 10, 915–934. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe10030065.
  3. Tricahyadinata, I., Hendryadi, S., Zainurossalamia Z. A. S., & Riadi, S. S. (2020). Workplace incivility, work engagement, and turnover intentions: Multi-group analysis. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1743627.
  4. Vance, R.J. (2006) Employee Engagement and Commitment. SHRM Foundation, 1, 1-53.
  5. Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Reeves, D. W., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmet, M. D., & Gallus, J. A. (2012). Assessing workgroup norms for civility: The development of the civility norms questionnaire-brief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 407–420.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9251-4

  1. Xiao, Z., Wu, D. & Liaq, Z. (2018). Job insecurity and workplace deviance: the moderating role of locus of control. Social Behaviour and Personality, 46(10), 1673-1986. DOI:2224/sbp.7160
  2. Yan, M., Xie, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, Y., Bashir, M., & Liu, Y. (2020). How ingratiation links to counterproductive work behaviour s: The roles of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Frontier in Psychology, 11(3), 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02238.

  1. Yongxing, Guo.Du, Hongfei. Xie, Baoguo.Lei, Mo (2017) Work engagement and job performance: The moderating role of perceived organizational support.Anales de Psicologia 33(3): 708. DOI: 10.6018/analesps.33.3.238571.
  2. Zahid, A., & Nauman, S. (2023). Does workplace incivility spur deviant behaviour s: roles of interpersonal conflict and organisational climate. Personal Review, 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2022-0058.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار