Impact of workplace incivility on choice of coping strategies: A mixed method study

Abstract

This research drew upon a mixed-method approach to gain further insight into workplace incivility and its impact on an employee’s preferred choice of coping strategies (Avoidant Coping, Task Focused Coping, and Emotion Focused Coping). Utilizing a convenience sampling approach, data was collected from working adults that were employed in companies within the United Arab Emirates for a period of at least 6 months (N = 151). Three simple linear regressions and an inductive thematic analysis were conducted to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative findings revealed that workplace incivility significantly predicted avoidant coping as well as emotion focused coping. The complementary thematic analysis further revealed that employees who were a target of incivility were negatively impacted and often looked to trusted confidants to share their experiences with. The results of this study hope to be used as a base for developing intervention initiatives in organizations to prevent workplace incivility from escalating to more aggressive forms of behavior by providing employees with the support needed to better cope and address such situations. Implementing programs such as mindfulness training, cognitive-behavioral stress management, and proactive coping interventions are recommended to better support employees in the workplace.

Keywords:

• Coping
• incivility
• job performance
• work stress

Introduction

One form of workplace deviance, incivility, has demonstrated negative impacts not just at an individual but an organizational level as well (Di Fabio & Duradoni, 2019; Kabat-Farr et al., 2018). Workplace incivility is estimated to be experienced by 98% of workers, with at least 50% of them experiencing such conduct on a weekly basis (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined workplace incivility as "low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect" (p. 457). Zauderer (2002) further elaborated that incivility can also be seen as "disrespectful behavior that undermines the dignity and self-esteem of employees and creates unnecessary suffering" (p. 38). Such behaviors can take many forms varying from demeaning language and belittling colleagues in front of others, to simply ignoring requests (Porath & Pearson, 2012; Schilpzand et al., 2016).

Workplace incivility results in various negative consequences impacting the recipient’s physical and psychological wellbeing subsequently affecting their job and life satisfaction as evident in increased levels of work stress and withdrawal (Di Fabio & Duradoni, 2019; Koon & Pun, 2018). Having been linked to lower employee engagement and impaired performance effectiveness (Ma et al., 2018), workplace incivility can invoke decreased organizational commitment, increased burnout and turnover among those who directly experience incivility and those who witness it (Cortina et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2018).

Research to date has mainly focused on understanding the causes and consequences of workplace incivility but despite its severity and frequency, it remains poorly understood, especially by human resource development (HRD) practitioners (Estes & Wang, 2008). Recent studies have also provided insights on how antecedents such as individual differences, stigmatized identities, job related/situational factors, and cognitive and emotional mechanisms might lead to incivil behavior or act as an intervening factor that can mediate and moderate incivility (Cortina et al., 2017; Jelavić et al., 2021). Although a body of research has identified ways to control workplace incivility, only a few have examined the qualities and attributes needed to manage its impacts (Cortina et al., 2001; Welbourne et al., 2016). These studies suggested that an employee’s preferred coping style can influence how they manage incivility and its effects on their work attitudes, reinstating that coping can reduce any harmful strains linked to workplace stressors. As such, it is crucial to identify how employees respond to workplace incivilty in order to identify what kind of support is thus needed (Endler & Parker, 1990; Miner et al., 2012).

Whilst one can never fully eliminate stress from their daily life, there are appropriate coping strategies that can be practiced to alleviate it (Hasan et al., 2018). Stress culminating from one’s workplace environment, referred to as occupational stress, can lead to poor mental and physical health in employees resulting in poorer performance and job satisfaction (Koon & Pun, 2018; Nisar & Rasheed, 2020). Research suggests that the primary sources of stress in one’s life arise from the hassles faced in daily life and not from major life events; therefore, it is important to gain insight into how individuals experience and cope with the impacts of such incidents (Folkman, 2009; Lim & Lee, 2011). Coping is defined as one’s ability to manage both internal and external demands through thoughts and behaviors in varying stressful situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Hershcovis et al., 2018). Coping strategies are commonly categorized as problem solving coping, involving techniques to reduce and/or solve the demands associated with the stressor, or emotionally focused coping, which involves modifying the psychological reaction linked to the stressor (Hasan et al., 2018). The utilization of effective coping strategies has proven to mitigate the amount of stress experienced in turn influencing an individual’s level of general health (Folkman, 2010; Hasan et al., 2018).

Individuals adopt different coping strategies across varying situations; however, they display stability in their preferred coping strategies when faced with stable dispositional factors (Endler & Parker, 1990; Ptacek et al., 2008). Nonetheless, Welbourne et al. (2016) suggest that coping preferences that tend to positively impact an employee’s wellbeing may not offer the same positive benefits when the employee encounters incivility-related stressors. This implies that some coping preferences may be more effective than others in the context of workplace incivility. Coping styles are important in mediating the effects of organizational stressors impacting the level of emotional exhaustion, emotional regulation, job anxiety, and job satisfaction one experiences at work (Boyd et al., 2009; Moritz et al., 2015). Hence, it is vital to gain insight into how individuals cope with such situations to be able to better support them in recovery and adjustment (Endler & Parker, 1990; Miner et al., 2012).

The Transactional Stress and Coping model (TSCM) differentiates coping into two broad strategies—problem focused coping and emotion focused coping (Folkman, 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem focused coping includes cognitively based behavioral responses aimed at alleviating the stressful situation such as identifying alternative solutions, weighing their pros and cons, and taking the necessary action to address the problem (Drnovsek et al., 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Contrarily, emotion focused coping involves the behavioral responses utilized in regulating one’s emotional responses to stressful events such as avoidance and keeping distance from the problem (Drnovsek et al., 2010; Folkman, 2009). As a heads-on approach, problem focused coping is often associated with positive outcomes however its practicality is dependent on the intensity of the stressor experienced (Boyd et al., 2009; Folkman, 2010). The TSCM suggests that when individuals perceive the stressor as uncontrollable, active confrontation becomes less feasible (Folkman, 2010; McCarthy et al., 2019). As the underlying intent of incivility is unclear it becomes difficult for an individual to identify its cause, making it more challenging to control and cope with (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, 2008). Thus, employees reliant on problem focused coping may find this approach ineffective when faced with workplace incivility. In contrast, the TSCM suggests that when faced with uncontrollable stressors, emotion focused coping and avoidance coping are more beneficial for employees as it allows them to control their emotional responses, given their perceived inability to control and alter the stressor itself (Folkman, 2010; McCarthy et al., 2019). While emotion focused coping focuses on regulating the emotions generated in response to the appraisal of anxiety, loss, and fear (Folkman, 2010), avoidance coping focuses on strategies that allow the employee to escape and disengage from the stressful situation either emotionally or behaviorally (Skinner et al., 2003).

To date, few studies have established the range of coping strategies used by employees who experience workplace mistreatment (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2018). An exploratory examination found that an employee’s appraisal of the severity of the incivility influenced their responses (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2018). These employees tried multiple coping strategies including problem solving, avoidance, confrontation, seeking organizational support, and resorting to quitting if the mistreatment persisted (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Hasan et al., 2018). Existing studies have also investigated the frequency of the strategies being utilized with avoidance strategies surpassing the use of assertive strategies (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2018). This suggests that employees preferred to ignore their instigators than confront them. Additionally, the least frequent strategy was reporting the incident as employees felt that the incident was insignificant to report to management and instead opted to seek support from a trusted person (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2018). However, these studies mainly focused on workplace bullying, and it is still uncertain whether those findings can be extended to low-intensity deviant behaviors like incivility.

Studies that have examined coping outcomes have also demonstrated that target assertion, such as confronting the perpetrator and voicing concerns, tends to exacerbate the mistreatment (Reknes et al., 2016). For example, Cortina and Magley (2009) found that when targets tried to speak up, either by seeking support from others, confronting the perpetrator, or making a formal complaint, they were at greater risk of counterretaliation. Their work, however, did not compare these target voice mechanisms to other coping responses. Similarly, they found that targets who were able to recognize and avoid escalating behavior through quitting were also more successful at minimizing future mistreatment than those who attempted to voice their concerns to the perpetrators. Past studies have also explored the negative impacts of workplace incivility on employees (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Vasconcelos, 2020); however, more research is required for understanding the attributes that better support an employee to manage these negative impacts (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008).

Despite its links to detrimental outcomes, workplace incivility continues to exist (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Vasconcelos, 2020). Currently, little is known about the extent to which workplace incivility predicts coping strategies and whether there is any significant relationship about the efficacy of coping strategies in this regard (Hershcovis et al., 2018; Welbourne et al., 2016). Moreover, past studies have mainly been oriented toward exploring problem focused coping and emotion focused coping in general or incivility in relation to its impact, the instigators, those who witness it, and those close to employees who experience it. Only a few studies have explored the relationship between incivility and the qualities needed to manage it effectively. This research was built on the work of Welbourne et al. (2016), who suggested exploring the role of coping styles in relation to incivility. Therefore, the present study aimed to expand the work and recommendations of Welbourne et al. (2016) by researching employees’ preferred coping strategies in dealing with incivility. Furthermore, extending upon the existing literature on TSCM and incivility, this study integrates theoretical frameworks of coping to better comprehend how employees experience workplace stressors characterized by low intensity and high ambiguity while examining their preference for avoidant, task focused, and/or emotion focused coping with the intent to support organizations in better managing workplace incivility and assist those employees that are most susceptible to the impacts of incivility.

Overview of the current study

This study set out to investigate the impact of workplace incivility on an employee’s preferred choice of coping strategies (Avoidant Coping, Task Focused Coping, and Emotion Focused). In line with the findings that avoidance and confrontation coping are ineffective in preventing incivility from reoccurring (Hershcovis et al., 2018) and the findings that employees who do use problem focused coping experience greater negative outcomes while those who use emotion focused have mixed results (Welbourne et al., 2016), it is hypothesized that (1) workplace incivility will significantly predict avoidant coping; (2) workplace incivility will significantly predict task focused coping; (3) workplace incivility will significantly predict emotion focused coping. Moreover, by utilizing a mixed-method approach we aim to gain further insight into workplace incivility and its impact on an employee’s preferred choice of coping strategies. Therefore, our main Research Question centers around how employees respond to workplace incivility.

Method

Design

The research design incorporated a predominantly quantitative section with a complimentary qualitative section, therefore the research drew upon a mixed-method approach to gain further insight into workplace incivility and its impact on an employee’s preferred choice of coping strategies. Albeit, less frequently utilized in a mixed-method approach, the use of open-ended questions at the end of quantitative surveys to complement qualitative reflections has been used by previous studies (Mohideen & Khokhlova, 2022) and also allowed by Creswell and Hirose (2019). The use of such an approach not only supported in gathering data from a larger participant pool but also helped to enhance the validity of any inferences made from the data as it allowed the research team to expand on the findings from the standardized questionnaires by incorporating an analysis of the responses from the open-ended questions (Molina-Azorin, 2016). Thus, the predictor variable in this study is workplace incivility and the outcome variables are the coping strategies (task, emotion, and avoidance).

Participants

A-priori sample size calculations were conducted to determine the sample necessary to detect a medium effect. The calculations suggested that with one predictor in each regression, power of 0.8, an effect size of .15, and an α of .05, we required a minimum of 54 participants. This study utilized a convenience sampling approach to collect data from 151 working adults that were employed in companies within the United Arab Emirates for a period of at least 6 months, out of which 64.9% were female (n = 98) and 35.1% male (n = 53). The United Arab Emirates was selected as it has a large expatriate population from many different countries. Participants were comprised of various nationalities that included mostly British, Indians and Middle Eastern (15.9% each, n = 72), followed by Filipinos (7.9%, n = 12), Americans (4%, n = 6) and a various small mix of other nationalities from Europe, Australia, South American and Africa (40%, n = 61). Out of the 151 respondents, 126 participated in the qualitative part of the study. The age range of the respondents fell between 22 and 65 years old (M = 34.38, SD = 7.12), with their work experience ranging between 1 and 40 years (M = 16.89, SD = 6.50). Those holding a managerial position (1 or more employees reporting to them) comprised of 47% (n = 71) respondents and those of non-managerial positions (no employees reporting to them) comprised of 53% (n = 80) respondents. All participants were employed on a full-time basis.

Measures

The coping inventory for stressful situations-21 (CISS-21, Endler & Parker, 1990)

The shortened version CISS-48 includes 21 items to assess various behaviors and cognitive activities that individuals may engage in to cope with stressful situations (Endler & Parker, 1990). Participants were asked to rate each question on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much) on three subscales: avoidant coping, task focused coping, and emotion focused coping (7 items each). The scale score ranges from 21 (lowest) to 105 (highest). Items include statements such as "Take some time off and get away from the situation," "Focus on a problem and see how can I solve it," and "Blame myself for having gotten into this situation." Cronbach’s alpha obtained for each of the subscales showed good reliability for avoidant coping (.78), for task focused (.89), and for emotion focused (.88).

The workplace incivility scale (WIS, Cortina et al., 2001)

The WIS was used to measure workplace incivility on a 7-item scale. Participants were asked to rate each question on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1 = Never to 5 = Many Times) based on how frequently they experienced supervisor or coworker instigated workplace incivility in the past year (Cortina et al., 2013). The score ranges from the lowest of 7 to the highest of 35. Items include: "Gave you hostile looks, stares, or sneers" and "Yelled, shouted, or swore at you." The scale showed excellent reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.

Qualitative questions

Due to the exploratory nature of this research, three open-ended questions were included within the online questionnaire to allow the respondents to share their thoughts and experiences of workplace incivility to gain a deeper understanding of how they respond to experiencing workplace incivility. Three open-ended discussion points centered on participants’ overall experience of workplace incivility:

1. Describe your experiences of workplace incivility?

2. What are your immediate reactions to workplace incivility?

3. How do you share your experience of workplace incivility (explain)?

Procedure

This study received ethical approval from the university’s ethics committee. The participants were recruited through various social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. All interested participants were provided with a Qualtrics survey link which consisted of a consent form wherein the participants were informed about the confidentiality and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage of the research. The link was set up in a way that allowed only consented participants to complete the survey which was comprised of survey questionnaires starting with the WIS, followed by the CISS–21, and ending with three open-ended questions. Participants were also given an information sheet at the beginning of the study along with the contact details of the researcher to enable follow-up if they had any queries or required any additional information about the study. The data was collected between March and May 2021.

Data analysis strategies

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics was computed for all study variables along with three simple regressions to compute and predict the impact of workplace incivility on each coping strategy (Avoidant Coping, Task Focused Coping, and Emotion Focused Coping).

Qualitative

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach was conducted to gain a greater meaning and context to the findings as well as to identify the broader implications of the subject by identifying patterns and themes. Thematic analysis allows researchers to look deeper into how the participants experience and immediately react to workplace incivility and how they share those experiences. Additionally, to ensure validity and reliabilty the data was analyzed through a 6-phase process (Cramer & Howitt, 2004). Familiarization with the data (1), involved reading and re-reading the responses from 126 participants on the 3 open-ended questions to become acquainted with it. The responses were also exported to an Excel file to make it easier to organize the data and take notes. The next phase involved generating initial codes relevant to the data (2), wherein both semantic and latent content was identified and reviewed in a meaningful way with regards to how the participants respond to experiencing workplace incivility. By conducting independent coding, the researchers were able to ensure interrater reliability. Doing so allowed them to engage in a critical discussion on the interpretations and its plausibility to enhance the reliability and accuracy of the analysis and research (Golafshani, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Smith & McGannon, 2018). To search for themes (3), the identified codes were revisited and then grouped into different combinations with the aid of tables in the Excel sheet to be able to further identify the potential relationships between codes, themes, and subthemes. After reviewing the themes (4), the themes and sub-themes were refined, finalized, and placed into a thematic map where the final themes were defined and named (5). As part of the final phase (6), the findings were analyzed and related to relevant literatures in order to produce the report. Though the phases are described linearly, the analysis conducted involved a lot of back-and-forth reflexivity by the authors (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Results

The mean score for workplace incivility was 24.37 (SD = 9.81). With regards to the coping strategies, the mean score for avoidant coping was 18.74 (SD = 5.81); for emotion focused coping 19.21 (SD = 6.99) and for task focused coping 25.76 (SD = 6.28). The sample was comprised of adults (M = 34.28, SD = 7.12) with considerable years of experience in the workplace (M = 11.89, SD = 6.50) (Table 1). The Product Moment correlational analysis was computed among workplace incivility, avoidant coping, task focused coping, and emotion focused coping. The relationship was significant between workplace incivility and avoidant coping r(151) = .32, p < .001, and emotion focused coping r(151) = .36, p < .001. However, the relationship between workplace incivility and task focused coping is not significant r(151) = −0.00, p > .05.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for age, work experience, experienced workplace incivility, and adopted coping strategies.

	Mean	Std. Deviation
Age	34.28	7.12
Total Years of Work Experience	11.89	6.50
Workplace Incivility	24.37	9.81
Avoidant Coping	18.74	5.81
Task Focused Coping	25.76	6.28
Emotion Focused Coping	19.21	6.99

N = 151.

To further establish predictability of workplace incivility in coping styles, three simple linear regressions were conducted with statistical significance receiving a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and being accepted at the p < .016 level.

As seen in Table 2, 10.2% of the variance in avoidant coping can be explained by workplace incivility (R² = .102). It can thus be inferred that workplace incivility is a statistically significant predictor of avoidant coping (F (1,149) = 16.89, p < .001).

As seen in Table 3, workplace incivility failed to explain any variance to task focused coping (R² = .000), also the non-significant ANOVA model suggests a poor fit (F (1,149) = .001, p = .973).

Table 2. Simple regression results of workplace incivility as a predictor of avoidant coping.

Block	Predictor	Workplace Incivility
1	Avoidant Coping	Model Fit	β	t
		R² = .102	.31***	4.11
		F(1, 149) = 16.89***

Note: β = standardized regression coefficient. *** p < .001.

Table 3. Simple regression results of workplace incivility as a predictor of task focused coping.

Block	Predictor	Workplace Incivility
1	Task Focused Coping	Model Fit	β	t
		R² =.000	−0.003	−0.034
		F(1, 149) = .001

Note: β = standardized regression coefficient. p = .973.

As seen in Table 4, 12.9% of the variance to emotion focused coping can be explained by workplace incivility (R² = .129). Workplace incivility emerged as a statistically significant predictor of emotion focused coping (F (1,149) = 22.09, p < .001).

Table 4. Simple regression results of workplace incivility as a predictor of emotion focused coping.

Block	Predictor	Workplace incivility
1	Emotion Focused Coping	Model Fit	β	t
		R² = .129	.35***	4.70
		F(1, 149) = 22.09***

Note: β = standardized regression coefficient. *** p < .001.

Qualitative analysis

With regards to qualitative analysis, three themes emerged through a process of inductive analysis, namely ‘crossing the line,’ ‘the aftermath of discourtesy,’ and ‘importance of trusted confidants.’ These will be discussed sequentially below with a focus on the experiences of the participants on how they respond to workplace incivility. To maintain anonymity, the participants are identified by their entry numbers (P1, P2, P3, and so forth) in the quotes below.

Theme 1: Crossing the line

One of the themes that emerged was experiencing incivility at the hands of employees that crossed the line and displayed a lack of regard for either their subordinates or coworkers in the workplace environment. Such thoughtless actions can leave employees feeling disrespected, intimidated, and undermined, and the effects of experiencing such uncivil behaviors can have lasting damages which fray the relationships between manager, colleague, and subordinate.

Public shaming was one of the ways in which the participants experienced workplace incivility. Participants shared that their coworkers often belittled them in various settings when giving feedback.

“I was … accused by a very senior person of not paying enough attention …, I was … called incompetent in front of the whole floor…” (P72; 33 years, Female, Indian, Managerial, 9 years work experience)

Some participants shared incidents wherein the comments being publicly expressed were not non-work related in nature.

“A manager of mine made several comments about me not going to pray… she made jokes … publicly and caused me embarrassment.” (P108; 25 years, Female, American, Non-Managerial, 3 years work experience)

The above quotes illustrate how being publicly embarrassed at the hands of your manager/coworker can negatively impact an employee making them feel uncomfortable and belittled in front of their colleagues. Such exchanges can create an unpleasant environment in the workplace and even result in pushing an employee to retaliate just to try and control the situation when they feel wrongly attacked.

Aggressive behaviors were another way the participants witnessed workplace incivility being displayed by their managers/coworkers. Participants shared that their managers/colleagues displayed both overt and passive aggressive behaviors in private and public settings that made them feel very uncomfortable and devalued.

“A general manager I worked with had a short temper … There were instances wherein he would throw any object in hand … and wouldn’t care if an employee was … hurt….” (P83, 35 years, Male, Indian, Managerial, 11 years work experience)

This illustrates that such managers/coworkers also allow themselves to engage in such uncivil actions without care or regard for who is witnessing their actions and undermine the lasting impact it has on the employee and even those who witness it. Moreover, their actions can create a tense and hostile atmosphere that produces serious workplace dysfunction which prevents employees from performing at their best.

Misogyny was also a common occurrence within some of the responses, wherein the female participants detailed experiencing subtle forms of discrimination in the workplace. The respondents described receiving unwarranted and baseless comments from their managers/colleagues on their appearance, role expectations, emotional stability, and behavior.

“Another supervisor made crude remarks about my body, in spite of being at work and wearing company approved uniforms.” (P102, 37 years, Female, Spanish, Non-Managerial, 10 years work experience)

This reflects that sexist assumptions and practices in the workplace can fuel negative stereotypes based on gender and hold women back by channeling them into the wrong roles.

Theme 2: The aftermath of discourtesy

Another theme that emerged from the responses was with regards to the aftermath of experiencing workplace incivility. Those who personally experienced discourtesy or even witnessed it occurring expressed feeling a wide range of unpleasant emotions, having the need to confront the perpetrator and/or try and find a solution given the resources available to them.

Negative emotional effects were reported by several of the participants detailing feelings of anger, frustration, sadness, anxiety, and depression because of being subjected to incivility.

“Clam up, sulk.” (P124, 40 years, Male, Indian, Managerial, 18 years work experience)

This illustrates that experiencing such subtle forms of mistreatment can have serious and consequential impacts on both an employee’s emotional and mental health as employees internalize the experience and start to question and even begin to doubt their own capabilities by ruminating over the mistreatment.

The need to address it was also detailed by the participants that were victims of incivility. Participants shared that being faced with such situations prompted them to act against the perpetrator either by confronting them on the spot or by taking some time to identify appropriate ways to address it with them at a later stage.

“Depending on the incident it can either range from me taking a moment away from the problem, confronting the behavior or trying to fix it.” (P1, 36 years, Male, Sudanese, Non-Managerial, 10 years work experience)

This suggests that some employees feel confident to address the perpetrator or prefer to take themselves out of the situation so that they can have some time to reflect first before reacting.

End of employment was a route for several participants who felt that such uncivil actions were no longer acceptable, with some often resorting to avoiding it until they could no longer tolerate it.

“I’m quitting my job soon, hope by summer.” (P85, 40 years, Male, Algerian, Managerial, 15 years work experience)

Such sentiments illustrate that incivility in the workplace creates a toxic working environment and that the employees are unable to endure it, and as a result look to ending their employment and finding alternate job opportunities just to end it.

Theme 3: Importance of trusted confidants

The final theme identified within the participant responses was the importance of having a strong support network of trusted confidants. Participants reported sharing their workplace experiences with their parents, partners, siblings, friends, and colleagues; anyone who they felt comfortable enough to speak with and trusted would give good advice and support on how to address the unpleasant situation they were facing at work.

Outsiders, such as friends and family, were reported by several respondents as their main go-to for venting and sharing their experiences with.

Having someone to share the mistreatment with helps release the frustrations of the day and allows the employee to feel like they have a safe space to disclose their experience. Some participants however, felt like they also had to be mindful of how often they shared as they didn’t want to be perceived as complaining. This reflects that the employee needs more than one opportunity to share and vent and that this is not a matter that can be addressed just by having a support system outside the office.

“I at times call my friends but not often because I do not want to come off as weak or a whiner.” (P100, 32 years, Female, Zimbabwean, Managerial, 8 years work experience)

Participants also opted to share their experiences with insiders, such as close colleagues, especially those who they felt they could trust in such situations or those they had seen experience something similar in nature.

“Occasionally … with a colleague that I trust, or whom I know has dealt with similar incivility.” (P29, 29 years, Female, Egyptian, Managerial, 9 years work experience)

This illustrates that employees may require support not just in terms of having someone they can vent to, to feel heard, but also having someone whom they can trust to give good advice on how to address the problem so that it does not escalate or become worse.

It was interesting to also see that very few participants shared that they would approach their managers or HR for support, and from those that did some even shared that it resulted in an unfavorable outcome.

“I discussed with my direct superior the issue … with no results. I escalated the topic to HR but still didn’t get the proper appreciation. I tried to find another opportunity…” (P99, 31 years, Male, Jordanian, Managerial, 8 years work experience)

Some also shared that they felt their company tolerates such behavior and has no protocols in place for addressing incivility, often even opting to take the side of the instigator over the victim of incivility.

“… there are no checks within organizations to guide individuals … Neither does HR nor Senior Management find it necessary to intervene … when an employee takes a courageous step to get HR involved, it is frowned upon and … results in termination of the employee and not the toxic element…” (P89, 38 years, Female, Indian, Non-Managerial, 16 years work experience)

This reflects that some employees feel it is wiser to keep quiet and find a way to handle the situation themselves as opposed to flagging it to management or HR. They also feel that their companies tolerate such behaviors as they have not set up any proper channels for addressing incivility in the workplace.

Discussion

The present research aimed to examine the impact of workplace incivility on an employee’s choice of coping strategies as well as explore their experiences of workplace incivility. The quantitative findings supported our first and third hypotheses as workplace incivility showed a significant relationship with avoidant coping and emotion focused coping. This was further substantiated by the significant predictability of workplace incivility in avoidant coping and emotion focused coping. This is consistent with previous research that reported a significant link between workplace incivility and both avoidant coping and emotion focused coping (Boyd et al., 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2018; Welbourne et al., 2016). The second hypothesis however was unsupported, with the findings indicating that workplace incivility was not a significant predictor of task focused coping. Our findings echoed previous research which found a weak relationship between incivility and task focused coping (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Folkman et al., 1986; Hershcovis et al., 2018).

The TSCM categorizes coping into two separate categories, problem focused coping which involves efforts that actively aim to address the stressor, and emotion focused coping which involves efforts to regulate and control the emotions (Folkman, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The TSCM suggests active confrontation is less feasible when an individual perceives the stressor as uncontrollable. Workplace incivility is challenging to cope with due to its ambiguity, so employees may find problem-focused coping ineffective when experiencing incivility (Boyd et al., 2009; Cortina, 2008; McCarthy et al., 2019; Welbourne et al., 2016). Avoidant coping and emotion focused coping on the other hand were shown to be more utilized in such context as employees were able to have more control over their own emotional responses than the situation itself, reflecting that this coping strategy may be more feasible for the employees in such ambiguous situations (Folkman, 2010; McCarthy et al., 2019). Welbourne et al. (2016) also state that individuals who engage in avoidant coping strategies are less likely to ruminate over the incident, making them better able to manage work stressors and recover from the situation by detaching themselves from it. However, it is important to note that according to Boyd et al. (2009), avoidance coping may be maladaptive, so it is imperative for organizations to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of such coping strategies when managing incivility.

The qualitative findings provided further insights into the quantitative results by offering additional evidence on the impacts of exposure to various forms of workplace incivility. It was found that the experienced incivility were instigated by colleagues. This is consistent with Schilpzand et al.’s (2016) study which reviewed existing literature and found that workplace incivility could be instigated by an employee’s manager as well as their coworker. Employees were publicly shamed by colleagues that made demeaning comments both work-related and personal in nature which embarrassed them. Experiences of witnessing occasions where the colleagues displayed aggressive behaviors generating discomfort and devaluation impacting workplace relationships were also observed. According to Torkelson et al. (2016), workplace incivility has been shown to decrease satisfaction with managers and colleagues therefore causing strain on their relationships at work.

Even though workplace incivility is considered low intensity, it is important to not ignore its spiraling nature wherein behaviors can become more serious and aggressive, possibly leading to intention to harm (Torkelson et al., 2016). Such behaviors can cascade down within organizations, as managers that behave uncivil can become negative role models and in turn influence those around them to adopt such behaviors consequently creating an uncivil climate within the company (Estes & Wang, 2008; Lim et al., 2008; Torkelson et al., 2016).

Exposure to incivility in the workplace also revealed various impacts on the employees. After being subjected to incivility, the employees detailed feeling negative emotions such as anger, frustration, sadness, anxiety, and depression. Such negative emotional impacts on employees can leave them feeling powerless or violated as their identity is challenged and bruised (Pearson & Porath, 2005; Porath & Pearson, 2012). While such mistreatment might be subtle, it can have serious effects on emotional and mental health, as employees begin to ruminate over the incident, questioning their capabilities and experiencing inward-focused emotions such as guilt and decreased self-esteem resulting in job withdrawal (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Kabat-Farr et al., 2018; Lim & Lee, 2011).

The need to address/confront the perpetrator was also observed. As a form of problem focused coping, confrontation has been argued to be ineffective in preventing the reoccurrence of workplace incivility, as the perpetrator typically becomes defensive and resentful (Hershcovis et al., 2018; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Even though problem focused coping was not predicted by workplace incivility as a preferred coping strategy, the reflective experiences provided insight into the possible negative outcomes that could arise when it does get utilized in those infrequent situations. Therefore, the qualitative findings shows how such data can help fill the gap to better understand the reasons behind this. Avoidance coping strategies have shown to allow individuals to escape from stressful situations and recover better as they are less likely to ruminate over their situation (Welbourne et al., 2016). However, when experiencing incivility this approach may not be as effective when it is persistent since avoidance coping does not remove the target from the stressor and in turn leads to greater emotional exhaustion, as such resulting in employees opting to leave their toxic workplace (Hershcovis et al., 2018).

Most employees also detailed sharing their experiences of workplace incivility with individuals they trusted. Some opted to discuss it with their friends and family and others opted to seek support from their colleagues. Research suggests that individuals who seek out emotional support focus on attaining moral support, encouragement, empathy, and sympathy (Miner et al., 2012). Thus, when employees are dealing with incivility in the workplace, they are likely to turn to their trusted confidants to provide them with such emotional support and assistance (Miner et al., 2012).

This study has several practical implications and valuable insights for human resources development (HRD) practitioners/managers seeking to create and maintain a positive work climate. Due to the unique, complex, and dynamic nature of relationships that exist within different workplace environments, eradicating workplace incivility has shown to be quite challenging (Bambi et al., 2017; Cortina, 2008). However, it is still important for HRD practitioners to provide employees with civility promotion training programs. The promotion programs entail sharing information about incivility related issues with the aim to bring about a positive work-culture change that diminishes workplace incivility by encouraging mutual respect and cooperation in the workplace while also building employee resistance and resilience (Bambi et al., 2017; Jelavić et al., 2021). Pearson and Porath (2005) stated that if incivility is allowed to thrive in a company, the targets will suffer and in the end the organization will also lose. If left unchecked such incidents can have negative consequences on both the individual and the organization as it leads to employee withdrawal and increased absenteeism resulting in decreased work efforts, productivity and performance, and even increased turnover in many cases as employees eventually exit the company (Pearson & Porath, 2005; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Torkelson et al., 2016).

One way of managing incivility is through creating environments and support systems that discourage uncivil behavior and give clarity to employees on the types of behaviors that are desired and acceptable within the workplace; this, in turn, reduces the demands on the employee to try and manage the situation on their own (Rosen et al., 2016). Individuals may have little to no control over how they respond to stress as this is something that is influenced by their social and physical environment as well as their biological heritage, however, what they think and what they do to respond to the stress, and even how they feel to some extent is controllable (Folkman, 2010). Thus, an individual’s coping response is critical for ensuring physical and mental health protection when faced with stressors in one’s daily life, and coping as an effective intervention can be taught through cognitive-behavioral stress management and proactive coping interventions (Folkman, 2011). Implementation of mindfulness training in the workplace has also shown to be an effective intervention in both reducing incivilty and also building effective coping strategies (Farley et al., 2022; Hülsheger et al., 2021). This information can be very useful when encouraging companies to provide interventions to support employees with developing better coping strategies as alternatives to avoidant coping or emotion focused coping which has shown to have negative health effects both in the short term and long term (Ben-Zur, 2009; Boyd et al., 2009; Penley et al., 2002).

Supervisors can also help combat workplace incivility by promoting respectful communication among employees and providing social support to employees targeted by uncivil acts (Sakurai & Jex, 2012). It is equally important for employees to also be given a safe space to address their stressors at work thus allowing them to detach during off-work hours and maintain their wellbeing (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Vahle-Hinz, 2019). The findings also highlight the need to address gender role expectations within organizations to prevent unjust bias against female workers (Carmona‐Cobo et al; 2019; Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013). Studies have found that employee training is not only vital in itself but aids in reducing turnover intention making it cost-effective to implement (Alola et al., 2018; Alola & Alola, 2018). When organizations provide both emotional and organizational support it mediates negative outcomes associated with workplace incivility and creates a conducive working environment helping sustain the organization (Holm et al., 2015; Miner et al., 2012). Thus, human resource practitioners should ensure the availability of strategic training to all staff and collectively encourage acceptable workplace etiquette (Torres et al., 2017).

The study would have benefited from a larger sample size for the quantitative part. Lack of clarity related to the qualitative part on the following question “How do you share your experience of workplace incivility (explain)?” is also a limitation. In this instance, the use of predominantly qualitative study designs could help provide immediate clarity to the respondents and more probing opportunities. Furthermore, such designs can further complement the existing literature by allowing for further questioning when respondents describe what support systems would help them better address/cope with incivility in the workplace. Additionally, obtaining more company specific information, such as size, industry, age, and general work culture would have added some deeper background context to the findings. This study could have also benefited from the inclusion of additional covariates that are known to predict coping strategies, such as personality traits, social support, or job demands (Boyd et al., 2009; DeLongis & Holtzman, 2005). Moreover, as instigators and targets of incivility are surrounded by other members of their workplace who are likely to observe their interactions, it is important to understand how they experience and cope with such incidents advancing the research on workplace incivility considering the potential role of observers in the intervention of uncivil workplace conduct (Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). While sexual harassment and violence, and harassment based on race, religion, age, and gender were beyond the remit of this research, there is a clear need for more research in this domain (Chaudhary et al., 2022; Scheitle & Ecklund, 2017; Smith et al., 2021).

Overall, the findings of this study provided insight into the preferred coping strategies of employees when experiencing workplace incivility. These findings provide an important foundation for future research on effective coping strategy interventions. This study demonstrates the extent to which coping strategies are predicted by incivility. Knowing that emotion focused and avoidant coping strategies are significantly utilized will allow future focused attention to better support these domains. Moreover, the results of this study could be used as a base for HRD practitioners in developing and initiating organizational interventions such as cognitive-behavioral stress management, proactive coping interventions, and mindfulness training to prevent workplace incivility from escalating to more aggressive behaviors by providing employees with the support needed to cope and address such situations.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Lynda Hyland and Dr. Nishtha Lamba for providing valuable insights into qualitative data analysis, and Ms. Denise Andrzejewski and Ms. Liana D’souza for valuable edits.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author, [BH]. The data are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.