Relationship between Workplace Incivility and Employee Performance

Workplace incivility frequently occurs in both public and private enterprises, and it has adverse effect on organizational functioning. This study examines the relationship between workplace incivility and four dimensions of employee performance (task performance, adaptive performance, counterproductive work behavior, and contextual performance). Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire, and participants were 227 employees selected from Local Government Councils in Delta State, Nigeria. Hypotheses were tested using simple linear regression. Findings revealed that workplace incivility was negatively related to both task and adaptive performance, but only significantly related to task performance. Furthermore, workplace incivility was found to be positively related to counterproductive work behavior and contextual performance, however, this relationship was only significant for counterproductive work behavior. It was recommended that management of Local Government Councils in Delta State should create an environment where uncivil behavior among employees is reduced.


Introduction
Workplace incivility (WI) which is a low-intensity deviant behavior with an uncertain intent to hurt has gained widespread attention and has recently emerged as a significant issue within organizations. This is because of its frequent occurrence both within enterprises and other external stakeholders (Vasconcelos, 2020). Employees may hide information from others because of WI Arshad & Ismail (2018), which hurts an organization's effectiveness. Managers' WI lowers employee morale and causes them to become disengaged from their work. This lowers employees' job happiness and motivate them to abandon their positions (Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018;Aruoren & Oisamoje, 2023). The literature on organizational behavior has recently began to concentrate on negative factors such as incivility that exist in the workplace, and numerous studies have looked at the effects of improper workplace conduct on organizations, groups, and individuals. As observed by Schilpzand et al (2016), although the literature mainly focused of the detrimental effects of negative workplace behavior (such as aggression, abusive supervision, bullying, deviance) on targets' work attitudes and behaviors, WI is a relatively new addition to these negative behaviors. The use of disparaging language, making subtle threats, gossiping, disobeying coworker requests, calling someone names that are not appropriate, isolating someone, insulting, taking credit for other people's efforts, placing blame for our own mistakes, checking email or texting during meetings, talking down to others, not listening, demeaning others, withholding information, paying little attention to or displaying little interest in others' opinions, avoiding someone, yelling at someone or simply disrespecting others at work are instances of WI (Gabriel & Akani, 2019). Such uncivil behaviors are common in contemporary workplaces and practically all industries. According to a poll conducted by Manzoor et al (2020), 93% of people had encountered such behavior, with a quarter of respondents reporting that this occurs at least once per week. Also, Gadi et al (2022) indicated that 73% to 89% of uncivil behavior were reported among nurses, court workers, university employees, as well as law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, research on employee performance (EP) focuses more on analyzing elements that contribute to favorable EP Atatsi et al (2019); Diamantidis & Chatzoglou (2019), and there is minimal evidence of stressors that negatively influence EP, such as incivility. According to Jawahar and Schreurs (2018), research on WI from numerous firms in various sectors have led to ambiguous findings, which calls for more studies concerning specific industries. Despite substantial study from academics and researchers, the issue of incivility is progressively being researched in the health, educational, and social sectors in Western, Asian, and North American countries, but is comparatively understudied in Africa, particularly Nigeria (Gadi et al., 2022). Thus, this study intends to fill this research gap by investigating the influence of WI on four dimensions (task performance, adaptive performance, contextual performance and counterproductive work behavior) of EP in public sector organizations in Nigeria.

Significance of the Study
WI among employees of Local Government Councils in Delta State, Nigeria is prevalent and have significant effects on employees' outcomes as well as organizational outcomes. The Local Government Council is the third tier of government in Nigeria and is closest to the people. Hence, its performance is of utmost importance to the overall development of the State and Country in general. This study is significant in the sense that it will unveil the effect of WI on employees' performance, which may lead to its reduction. Thus, creating an enabling environment for improvement in the performance of employees, supervisors, managers, and other stakeholders as well as the development of Local Government Councils in Delta State and the country in general.

Conceptual Review
Workplace Incivility According to Cortina et al (2017), WI is a relatively new concept in the study of abnormal workplace behavior. It refers to rude, dismissive, and exclusionary behaviors that violate respect-based workplace norms. It is defined as "low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect" (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). It is also seen as a milder version of organizational abuse and comprises actions that show a lack of respect for others. For behavior to be classified as uncivil, the perpetrator's intention to damage the victim must be considered as ambiguous, meaning there must be no obvious wish to harm (Oboreh et al., 2022). Examples of uncivil behavior include sarcasm, condescension, disparaging others, making condescending comments, subtly condemning statements, and nonverbal displays of impertinence like ignoring. In today's work environment, such negative workplace behaviors are common Rosen et al (2016), and studies have shown that the occurrence of WI is rising (Liu et al., 2019). Prior studies by Schilpzand, Pater, and Erez (2016); Cortina et al (2017); Vasconcelos (2020), indicate that WI have a greater negative psychological and physical impact on employees, including increased turnover intention, work withdrawal, workplace deviance, stress, and decreased task performance (TP), psychological well-being, organizational commitment, and contextual performance (CP). Thus, experiencing incivility at work can have a detrimental impact on an employee's performance (EP) and attitude toward their organization (Mao et al., 2019).

Employee Performance
EP is essential to the growth of any organization. Despite the importance of EP in organizations, there isn't much agreement on what exactly constitutes EP. Borman and Motowidlo (1993:71) suggest that EP describes "the proficiency with which incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs; activities that contribute to the organization's technical core either directly by implementing a part of its technical process, or indirectly by providing it with needed materials or services". According to Janssen and Van Yperen (2004), an EP is the culmination of the precise tasks listed in their job description, which their employer then evaluates and rewards. EP is defined as "scalable actions, behavior, and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and can contribute to organizational goals" (Viswesvaran & One, 2000, p. 216). EP is a multi-dimensional concept that includes task or in-role performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991), contextual performance or citizenship behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2009), counterproductive work behavior, as well as adaptive performance (Berg et al., 2010). Each dimension refers to specific aspect of performance, from individual standalone performance to the quality of interpersonal relations with other employees that ultimately influence overall performance of groups and organizations (Atatsi et al., 2019;Martin et al., 2016). TP refers to an employee's ability to effectively carry out the duties and obligations of the relevant function as outlined in the job description (Van Dyne et al., 1995). In other words, it concerns how well and successfully the personnel carry out their duties. It can be viewed as an agreement made pursuant to a written contract between an employer and an employee to carry out a task that has been assigned (Pradhan & Jena, 2016). AP has been described as the ability of individual employees or groups to change cognitions and behaviors to adapt to changing environments (Heinze & Heinze, 2020). Thus, it entails employees' ability at modifying "their behavior to meet the demands of a new situation or event or a changed environment" (Pulakos et al., 2000, p. 615). According to Podsakoff et al (2000), contextual or extra-role performance refers to employee discretionary actions that are thought to directly benefit the efficient operation of an organization without necessarily affecting an employee's productivity. However, contextual tasks are less role-prescribed and are present in many (or all) jobs. They support the social, psychological, and organizational framework needed for task performance. Volunteering, helping, persevering, and other such behaviors are examples of CP. Finally, it is thought that voluntary actions that affect organizations, clients, coworkers, and supervisors constitute counterproductive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2005). The main characteristic of CWB is that it is voluntary; it arises from an employee's choice, whether conscious or not, to engage in actions that are detrimental to the group or its members.

Empirical Review
Research has empirically demonstrated over the last 15 years that incivility at work has negative effects on employee outcomes (Khan et al., 2021). It is often associated with lower innovative work behavior, contextual performance (CP), task performance (TP), creativity, and increases counterproductive work behavior (CWB), negative emotions, which leads to dissatisfaction among employees. Zhang et al (2018) looked into how WI affected new nurses' performance on the job. 696 new nurses were participants, selected from 54 cities across 29 Chinese provinces. Regression analysis results showed a significant negative relationship between WI and new nurses' ability to perform their jobs. Scisco, Giumetti, Bodinger, Randall, and Shemanskis (2019) used an experimental design to examine the immediate impact of cyber incivility and face-to-face incivility vs. neutral interactions on both behavioral (TP, creativity, flexibility, CP, and CWB) and physiological outcomes (heart rate, heart rate variability, and skin conductance). Participants were 232 undergraduate students, and findings indicates that after uncivil interactions, participants engaged in significantly more CWBs. Instances of incivility did not however affect TP, creativity, flexibility, or CP. Memarzadeh et al (2012) study investigated the impact of WI on CP among 115 employees of Namazi hospital of Shiraz, Iran. Results obtained from Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that there is a significant negative relationship between WI and CP. Using information gathered from 160 academics at seven Pakistani public and private universities, Bibi et al (2013) examined the moderating role of emotional intelligence in the relationship between WI and CWB. According to the results of moderated multiple regression analysis, incivility and counterproductive behavior at work were positively related. In their study in 2021, Butt and Yazdani used psychological capital as a moderator, while using emotional exhaustion and organizational cynicism as mediators, to examine the relationship between WI and CWB among 215 banking employees in Pakistan. Regression analysis utilizing the Hayes Process Macro in SPSS 21 produced results showing a significant positive relationship between incivility at work and CWB. Gaan and Shin (2023) looked at the effects of supervisor incivility on the in-role performance (TP) and extra-role performance (CP) of 366 workers from 48 Indian retail establishments. These researchers used the theory of resource conservation as their theoretical foundation, and results from hierarchical linear modeling showed a negative relationship between supervisor incivility and both TP and CP. From these discussions, we hypothesize that H1: Workplace incivility is negative and significantly related to task performance. H2: Workplace incivility is negative and significantly related to adaptive performance.

Task Performance
Adaptive Performance

Counterproductive
Work Behavior

Workplace Incivility
H3: Workplace incivility is positive and significantly related to counterproductive work behavior. H4: Workplace incivility is positive and significantly related to contextual performance.

Sample and Procedure
In this research, data were collected from Local Government Council employees selected from the three senatorial district (Delta South, Delta Central, and Delta North) of Delta State, Nigeria, using a purposive sampling technique. The data were collected from the respondents using a self-administered questionnaire, and respondents were asked to give a response about the variables according to their personal opinions. Although, 300 copies of questionnaires were distributed to respondents at their place of work, 227 completed and useful responses were retrieved from participants amounting to 75.7 percent response rate.

Measures
The variables were measured using questionnaire items adopted from prior studies. WI was measured by fourteen items adopted from (Cortina et al., 2001). Participant indicated the frequency in which supervisors and coworkers exhibited certain behaviors within the last one year and they were the target, using a response scale ranging from 'never' to 'very often'. Sample item is 'Your supervisor or coworker makes demeaning or derogatory remarks about you'. CWB was assessed using an eighteen item scale adopted from (Bennett and Robinson, 2000). These items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 'never' to 'very often'. Sample item include 'I made fun of someone at work'. TP was assessed using a seven item measure adopted from Williams and Anderson (1991) via a five point scale ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. Sample items from the scale include 'In my place of work I engage in activities that will directly affect my performance evaluation'. To assess CP, the study used ten item scale adopted from Lee and Allen (2002) via a five point scale ranging from 'never' to 'very often'. Sample item include 'Assist others with their duties'. Finally, AP was assessed using ten items adopted from Charbonnier-Voirin and Roussel (2012) via a five point scale ranging from 'seldom' to 'always'. Sample item include 'I develop new tools and methods to resolve new problems'

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
EFA was performed on the data to examine its factor structure. Table 3.0 shows that Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was 0.844 that exceeded the cut-off value of 0.70 (Kaiser, 1974). In addition, Bartlett's test of Sphericity indicated a Chi-square value of 10998.605, with degree of freedom of 1431, and a significant p = 0.0000 < 0.05. These results indicate that the data was adequate for EFA. To optimize the number of factors, the study adopted Kaiser's criterion which recommended that retained factors should have eigenvalues greater than one (Kaiser, 1974). Figure 2.0 and Table 4.0 indicates that five factors (WI, TP, AP, CWB and CP) were retained. Each of these factors, WI, TP, AP, CWB, and CP explained 26.1, 19.1, 14.2, 13.2, 10.9 percent variance respectively, amounting to 83.5 percent of the variance in the data. This indicates that common method bias may not be a problem in this study as none of the factors explained more than 50% of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The standardized factor loadings for the retained factors ranges from 0.62 to 0.89, while the average variance extracted (AVE) for WI, TP, AP, CWB, and CP were 0.60, 0.54, 0.52, 0.55, 0.54 respectively (Table 4.0) and these were greater than 0.5 the cut-off value as recommended by (Hair et al., 2019), suggesting construct validity. The composite reliability (CR) for WI, TP, AP, CWB, and CP were 0.95, 0.83, 0.91, 0.94, and 0.91 respectively, while Cronbach alpha coefficient (α) were 0.81, 0.78, 0.75, 0.88, 0.92 respectively. These estimates were all greater than 0.70 which rendered enough evidence of good reliability, suggesting appropriate internal consistency within each construct (Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, the study adopted Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion for evaluating the discriminant validity of the study constructs. As shown in Table 5.0, the square roots of AVEs (diagonal entries) were greater than the corresponding Pearson correlation coefficients, indicating that every construct was distinct from each other.  WI10  WI11  WI12  WI13  WI14  TP1  TP2  TP3  TP4  TP5  TP6  TP7  AP1  AP2  AP3  AP4  AP5  AP6  AP7  AP8  AP9  AP10  CWB1  CWB2  CWB3  CWB4  CWB5  CWB6

Hypotheses Testing
This study used simple linear regression in testing the hypotheses. Table 5 shows the result of testing H1, with TP as dependent variable and WI as independent variable. It is evident from Table 5 that the regression coefficient value (Ω1 = -0.225) is significant at p < 0.05. Thus, H1 cannot be rejected. Hence, a unit increase in WI will cause a 22.5% decrease in TP. Furthermore, the R-square value of 0.0852, F = 20.957, and p = 0.000 < 0.05 indicates that WI explains 8.52 percent variance in TP.  Table 6 shows the result of testing H2, with AP as dependent variable and WI as independent variable. The result in Table 6 reveals that the regression coefficient value (β1 = -0.0693) is negative but insignificant (p = 0.273 > 0.05). Thus, H2 is rejected. Hence, a unit increase in WI will cause a 6.93% decrease in AP. Furthermore, the R-square value of 0.0053, F = 1.206, and p = 0.273 > 0.05 indicates that WI explains 0.53 percent variance in AP, which was insignificant.

Discussion of Findings
This study investigated the impact of WI on EP at Local Government Councils in Delta State, Nigeria. Findings revealed that WI affected task and adaptive performance of employees negatively. This finding is consistent and supports the finding of Gaan and Shin (2023) but disagrees with the result reported by Scisco et al. (2019). Thus, an increment in WI among employees will result in a decrease in both task and adaptive performance. Furthermore, WI was found to be positively associated with CWB, and CP. This finding concur with the result of Butt and Yazdani (2921); Bibi et al (2013), however this result did not support the result of (Gaan and Shin, 2023;Scisco et al., 2019;Memarzadeh, et al., 2012).

Conclusion/Recommendations
Previous studies indicate that WI adversely affects several employees' outcomes, thus this study sought to investigate the relationship between WI and four dimensions of EP (TP, AP, CWB, and CP). To assess the hypotheses, data were collected from public sector employees working at the Local Government Councils in Delta State, Nigeria. According to the findings, the association between WI and TP was negative and significant, while it had a little negative impact on AP, however it was strong and positively related to CWB, while its impact on CP was little but positive. It is expected that this results will drive more research work on WI and their mediators and moderators.