The Prevalence of Incivility for Junior Enlisted Sailors (E1-E6) in the Navy and Its Impact on Their Decision to Reenlist Jamaal T. Hollins Sullivan University Incivility does not only exist in the civilian sector but it also occurs within the military. These occurrences often lead to dissatisfaction and adverse behavior within the workplace. When it comes to studies on incivility within the U.S. military, literature is scarce. In this study, incivility among junior enlisted sailors in the U.S. Navy is examined. Using a quantitative analysis, aggression and anger was most common in the respondents’ workplace. The results suggest that incivility should be further explored, and that anger and aggression could be a leading cause in how incivility is displayed between junior enlisted sailors. INTRODUCTION Incivility is a harmful behavior that negatively impacts the workplace and is a growing challenge within organizations (Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, & Kowalski, 2012; Wachs, 2009). However, this uncivil behavior impacts the victim undesirably that causes harmful effects that are detrimental to the victim’s workplace, their job performance, and their health and wellbeing (Longo, 2013; D’Ambra & Andrews; 2014). Although U.S. Navy personnel are highly skilled, well-trained, maintain good physical condition, and can work under stressful conditions for a long period (Schonberg, 2012; Englund, Naitoh, Ryman & Hodgdon, 1983), the impact of uncivil behavior within their workplace, can cause devastating consequences on both personnel and the organization (Giumetti et al., 2012; Wachs, 2009). Much of the current literature on incivility has been accredited to and expanded tremendously due to the research on incivility in the nursing field and its impact, specifically, negative behavior displayed among nurses (Becher & Visovsky, 2012; Lachman, 2014; McNamara, 2012; Rowe & Sherlock, 2005; Smith, Andrusyszyn & Laschinger, 2010; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2013; Freshwater, 2000; Fairbanks & Walrafen, 2013). D’Ambra and Andrews (2014) asserted that the phenomenon of bullying is an “expression of incivility” (p. 736) that has destructive mental costs on the receiver. Moreover, incivility is deeply influenced by conflicting behavioral and personality differences (Leiter, Laschinger, Day & Oore, 2011; Kovach, Simpson, Reitmaier, Johnson & Kelber, 2010). Wachs (2009) suggested that incivility can be contagious and once this behavior is accepted as the norm, those who are responsible for such acts will continue this behavior and cause others to behave in a similar manner. Furthermore, Klima (2014) noted that incivility typically spills over to the victim’s personal life, outside the workplace, which contributes to how they react to uncivil behavior. 90 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 Background The United States Navy is not immune from acts of incivility (Ewing, 2010), which can be classified as cruelty and maltreatment (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 93, 10 U.S.C. 893). According to Hussain and Hassan (2015), “leadership is a science” (p. 94) whereby people are led towards a collective objective and where a leader’s position remains crucial. Hussain and Hassan asserted that a leader’s success depends on certain traits that comprise of a leader’s core personality. In order to determine a leader’s success, certain actions must be scrutinized, such as their way of formulating a vision, outlining goals and objectives, and their mentorship roles in the society. Research suggests that each of the aforementioned particular traits can be molded within a leader (Hussain & Hassan, 2015; Yukl, 2006). This implies that effective leadership plays a vital role in the behavior of those in the military and that differing styles of leadership can have a more favorable response within the organization (Hussain & Hassan, 2015). Rear Admiral Kelley (2014) declared that the naval profession has the obligation to ensure that its members uphold Navy standards and that its members are to be brought up to be effective Navy leaders. Moreover, as individuals accept and abide by the standards of the organization, they are more compelled to commit themselves to the success of the organization, which is the basis of organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). Clark and Springer (2010) noted that organizational support theory affirms the importance that leaders play when it comes to increasing organizational support. As organizations implement support initiatives, it lessens stress on its employees, which can result in a positive impact on job performance (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2006; Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008; Witt & Carlson, 2006). According to the U.S. Navy Commander Snodgrass (2014), due to the notable improvement in the economy since the recent financial crisis, and diminished trust in Navy leadership, the Navy could encounter problems retaining members of its officer corps. This suggests that the Navy’s inability to retain experienced leaders (e.g., officers) could have a critical and devastating impact on its enlisted force. Although Snodgrass’s research focus was on the Navy’s officer corps, he noted that the trend in retaining its officers could also have an adverse effect on its enlisted corps as well. According to the U.S. Navy (n.d.), the Navy corps is a robust organization that strives to carry themselves according to three basic principles, consisting of honor, courage, and commitment. With these principles (also known as Core Values) in place, Navy leaders can act as role models by exemplifying these core values, which ultimately can impact the behavior of their crew members. Rear Admiral Kelley (2014) asserted that every sailor who is responsible for another sailor is a leader in the Navy. This thus suggests that each member of the naval organization has a role to play in how they behave towards one another. The Rear following statement by Admiral Kelley cannot be re-emphasised: Junior enlisted personnel need to be recognized as prospective leaders who have the potential for strategic impact through their performance—not as folks “who just follow orders”—just as senior officers are called on to be bold and decisive leaders with the responsibilities of promoting and safeguarding the morale of those under their command. Indeed, all sailors must understand that we—individually and collectively as the Navy team—are accountable for the welfare of our shipmates, no matter our respective ranks. (p. 7). The Navy recently implemented a program called the Navy Leader Development Strategy (Kelley, 2014). According to Kelley (2014), the Navy Leader Development Strategy establishes a framework in how sailors are developed “through experience, education, training, and personal development” (p. 10). Kelley suggested that personal development, which comprises of a refining “self-reflection, critical thinking, moral growth, and lifelong learning” (p. 10), are philosophies that the Navy lacks when developing its leaders within the organization. The implementation of the Navy Leader Development Strategy suggests that the Navy recognizes a growing problem and determined that a change was needed American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 91 in order to develop better leaders within its organization. This opinion compelled the researcher to ask the following questions: Why do acts of incivility remain a problem in today's Navy? And, what impacts does incivility have on the Navy’s growing problem on retention of its sailors due to low levels of job satisfaction? Purpose of Study Clark and Springer (2010) suggested that leaders are critical when forming the environment and establishing the organization’s culture. Some researchers advocate for good leaders who demonstrate appropriate conduct and display proper behavior to be assigned novice subordinates for there to be a transfer of the good and acceptable qualities to the subjects hence create a positive impact on how they make decisions and conduct themselves within the workplace (Walumbwa, et al., 2011). Longo (2013) suggested that in order for acts of incivility to change within the workplace, it is critical that changes are made at the top, where a more power-driven culture may exist so that all employees are treated with respect. Some organizations fail to possess a clear understanding of the potential internal and external organization factors that can lead to discord if they are not handled in a manner that creates value for and within the organization (Nickerson, Yen, & Mahoney, 2012; Snodgrass, 2014). In order to create a constructive workplace, organizations are encouraged to work towards implementing initiatives that minimize stress, in an attempt to improve job satisfaction (Ghosh, Jacobs, & Reio, 2011). However, sustaining job satisfaction where there is workplace stress can be a challenge for organizations (Klima, 2014); especially when incivility is prevalent (Reio, 2011; Roberts, Scherer, & Bowyer 2011; Harkreader, 2008; Porath & Pearson, 2009; Cortina, et al., 2001). The purpose of this quantitative study is to assess the prevalence of incivility on junior enlisted sailors and its impact on their decision to reenlist. There are many factors that have a direct and indirect impact on job satisfaction (Lerner, et al., 2011). The presence of incivility in the workplace can be devastating on employees leading to a reduction in job satisfaction (Reio, 2011; Roberts et al., 2011; Harkreader, 2008; Porath & Pearson, 2009; &Cortina et al. 2001). This study specifically examines job satisfaction as the factor that affects a junior enlisted sailors’ intent to continue their military career beyond their initial term of service. Specifically, this study aimed to do the following: 1) determine the demographic profiles of the respondents, 2) determine the prevalence of incivility among the junior enlisted soldiers in the Navy, 3) determine the level of job satisfaction among the junior enlisted soldiers in the Navy, and 4) identify if there exist a significant relationship between the prevalence of incivility and job satisfaction. The results of this study could encourage further studies aimed at the overall junior enlisted retention rate in the military, in order to identify indicators that lead to incivility, which could reduce the level incivility and have a positive impact on the current retention rate throughout the military services. LITERATURE REVIEW The introduction of this pilot study briefly revealed why there are valid concerns regarding incivility in the workplace and how this behavior can influence the dynamics of employees and the workplace in general. When investigating negative behavior within the workplace, it is essential to examine the organization (Longo, 2013). The literature on workplace incivility is vast due to the growing interest in organizational behavior topics such as the effects of bullying in the workplace (Lachman, 2014; Longo, 2013; Wachs, 2009; D’Ambra & Andrews, 2014). Current studies on incivility provide an immense overview of influencers that either contribute to acts of incivility or leads to incivilities, such as job stress, job satisfaction, or negative interpersonal issues within the organization. The following literature review consists of the latest literature on incivility, job stress, and job satisfaction. Incivility According to Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary, incivility is "a rude or impolite attitude or behavior" (2015). Laschinger et al. (2009) define workplace incivility as low-level disrespectful behavior 92 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 with the intention to cause harm to the victim, without regard to workplace policies and others. Research on incivility over the last decade has shown that this behavior is occurring at a startling rate (Becher, & Visovsky, 2012; Lachman, 2014) and remains to be an influential component within the workplace (Hutton & Gates, 2008). The intent of this behavior is unclear and is not always aimed to cause problems (Wachs, 2009). Burr, Palinkas, and Banta (1993) noted that stressors within the organization comprise of the structure of the organization and the particular role that the individual has in the organization. Although the literature on incivility was limited in the early 2000s, its impact on the organization and its members were virtually unknown and classified as a job stressor in which victims were expected to react similarly to other common job stressors (Penney & Spector, 2005). In the past, incivility was defined similarly to counter workplace behavior (CWB) (Penney & Spector, 2005), as a minor negative behavior, with uncertain intention to cause the victim hurt, which went against the values of the workplace (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). CWB literature focused on the actor and environmental factors that led to its occurrence, while workplace incivility primary focus was on the victim’s “perspective and reactions” (Penney & Spector, 2005, p. 779). Incivility can be categorized as a component of counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). According to Spector & Fox (2002), CWB describes behaviors by employees that are harmful to both the organization and to those who are affiliated with it. Moreover, Wingard (2010) describes incivility as malicious behavior and unfair predispositions amongst individuals of the same group. Klima (2014) asserted that uncivil behavior is devastating and can appear in any organization. Incivility has the ability by nature to be veiled and difficult to detect among employees (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). Subsequently, incivility in the workplace can cause chaos within interpersonal relationships and their work environments (McNamara, 2012). Roberts et al. (2011) claimed that incivility inevitably produces job stress and lowers job satisfaction among employees. Job Stress According to Klima (2014), stress is an aspect of incivility. Moreover, incivility can be provoked due to many reasons such as job stress (Roberts, Scherer & Bowyer, 2011; Burr, Palinkas & Lawrence, 1993) resulting in a reduction in job satisfaction that could lead to retention problems within the organization (McKenna et al. 2003; Laschinger et al. 2009; Smith et al., 2010). Stress impacts both the employee and employer, and is an organizational problem that continues to be prevalent in western countries (Klima, 2014), that cause significant economic and social cost on organizations, their employees, and the government (Giumetti et al., 2012; Shih, 2010; Buys, Matthews & Randall, 2010). Sigh (2010) and Jehangir et al. (2011) found that stress negatively impacts an individual’s job performance and motivation to excel. The aforementioned studies further confirm previous research that found that job stress can lead to a wide-range of problems that affects an individual’s ability to perform as expected on the job (Burr, Palinkas, Banta, 1993). This concept aligns with both past and current research that reveals a correlation between those who experienced job stress and acting out CWB (Klima, 2014; Lachman; 2014; Chen & Spector, 1992; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Penney & Spector, 2002). Job Satisfaction and Employee Retention According to Klima (2014), job satisfaction is critical to preserving a strong work atmosphere within the workplace. Moreover, many studies advocate that incivility lowers job satisfaction (Miner et al., 2012; Cortina et al., 2001; Reio, 2011; Giumetti et al., 2012; Wachs, 2009). Reio and Ghosh (2009) revealed that 12% of their participants were involved in incivility within their workplace. Reio and Ghosh’s study suggested that verbal abuse was the most common behavior within the organization. Reio and Ghosh also found that chaos between supervisors and their subordinates led to a reduction in job satisfaction. This notion was supported by Caza and Cortina’s (2007) study that found that employees who had lower levels of job satisfaction were those who reported incivility head-on with their supervisors. Longo (2013) asserted that when investigating incivility among employees, an examination of the workplace is essential. When negative workplace relationships exist, they can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction, lack of commitment and reduced interest in the job (Reio & Ghosh, 2011; Roberts et al., 2011; American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 93 Harkreader, 2008). Lamar and Viola (2012) suggested that wherever physical and emotional symptoms associated with incivility exist, it can play a major factor in recruitment and retention of personnel. Similarly, if the ill-mannered behavior of incivility is not addressed, it could also have a profound effect on job performance, leading to a negative effect on recruitment and retention of personnel (Clark, 2012). Consequently, the existence of incivility can lead to victims displaying a higher level of job stress, emotional anguish, mental instability, and unhappiness, which also can eventually lead to reduced job satisfaction and result in the victim ultimately leaving the organization (Cortina & Magley). Incivility continues to be a growing phenomenon in today’s organization. Current research on incivility, in general, is massive; especially on the effects of incivility and how it can lead to job stress, reduced job satisfaction, and retention challenges. However, there are areas of incivility that are yet to be investigated or lack sufficient literature on, such as incivility in the military and its associated effects on military members. This research study explored incivility on junior enlisted sailors in the Navy and its impact on their decision to reenlist; specifically, job satisfaction. METHODOLOGY This section of the study discusses the methods and procedures of obtaining the data needed for the study as well as the analyses used to answer the proposed research question. Specifically, it includes the pilot study’s design, population, and sample, hypotheses, data collection, and analysis. According to Fitzgerald, Rumrill, and Schenker (2004), correlation designs are usually used to discover relationships between variables where manipulation is nonexistent. However, correlation does not provide evidence of a causal relationship; however, it can be predictive in adding further support to a theory and assess test-retest reliability (Waters, 2013). Correlation research measures the vigor of the relationship between naturally occurring variables. Since these variables are not modified like variables manipulated in an experiment, specific words such as predictors and criterion is most appropriate to use when explaining variables under examination (Fitzgerald al et., 2004). The aforementioned is suitable for studies using internet-based surveys, since it describes the principles of correlation research, and provide a precise and competent means for describing peoples’ viewpoint (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2002). The hypothesis for correlation research could be that there are positive or negative correlations among variables. According to Waters (2013), a precise correlation is an r +1.0 and -1.0. The correlation becomes positively and negatively stronger as it goes towards +1 and -1 respectively. Descriptive Analysis Descriptive analysis is a statistical analysis used to illustrate the group sampled from the collected data (Delaney, 2010). Descriptive statistics comprises of measures that describe, summarizes and show data in a significant manner that allows the researcher to gain a better sense of understanding of the data, in order to explain the narrative of the sample group (Delandy, 2010). Population and Sampling The target population of this study is junior enlisted sailors in the U.S. Navy. Convenience sampling was used to recruit sailors in this study from U.S. Military installation located in Bahrain. Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling which means the researcher did not consider selecting the subjects that are representative of the population but rather participants who fit the criteria of the study (Costanza, Blacksmith, & Meredith, 2015). Snowball sampling was used as well due to the need of the researcher to ask participants to inform their friends, who also fit the criteria for the study, about the survey. Participants The number of participants in this study consisted of 50 subjects between the ages of 18 and 34, both male and female of all races and ethnicities. Participants were recruited using personal networking resources that also led to others being notified of the study. An official invitation to participate in this study was sent via email with a link to complete the survey. Included in the link was a detailed informed 94 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 consent that explained that their participation confirms their consent to participate in the proposed study. The invitation letter to participate in the study is attached accordingly. Instrument/Measure This study used survey method to collect the data needed for the analysis. Survey research involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals through their responses to questions. This study used aforementioned research design in order to systematically collect information needed to answer the researcher’s questions and hypothesis. In particular, an internet-based survey was used in this study. According to Theuri and Turner (2002), web-based surveys are more advantageous than email surveys due to its ability to provide rapid and precise responses at a lower cost compared to other survey methods. In this manner, data can be collected from many people simultaneously, making it more time-efficient. A three-part survey consisting of demographic variables, Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), and the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (UWBQ) was used in this pilot study and was completed by participants online using Survey Monkey. The researcher was able to secure permission to use JSS and UWBQ in the survey completed by participants. Demographic variables that comprise of age, gender and race were necessary for this study to describe the sample population. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), developed by Spector (1985), was used to measure different aspects of the job satisfaction. JSS is a 36 item instrument that is comprised of 9 scales: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards (performance based rewards), operating procedures (required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work and communication. The scales are measured by four items with six choices each, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6) (Spector, 1985). In this study, however, only the first five scales were measured and the items corresponding to these scales were the ones included in the questionnaire. Responses to the survey questions were averaged to produce a satisfaction score for each scale as well as to determine overall job satisfaction. Scores with a mean item response of 4 or more, represents satisfaction, a mean item of 3 or less represents dissatisfaction, and those between 3 and 4 are uncertain (Spector, 1985). The Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire was used to measure workplace incivility. This incivility measure was developed by Martin and Hine (2005) and it comprises of four factors: hostility, privacy invasion, exclusionary behavior, and gossiping. This instrument enables researchers to differentiate varieties of incivility within the workplace, evaluates uniqueness of those types of businesses, and reduces incivility effectively (Martin & Hines, 2005). Data Collection The survey in this study was structured and distributed using Survey Monkey. Invitation to participate was posted in various groups on Facebook (not managed or associated with the U.S. Armed Forces) that catered to Navy personnel located in Bahrain. Participants were informed that the survey must be completed on a voluntary basis and during their off-time. Research Question and Hypotheses According to Soldatova and Rzhetsky (2010), research hypotheses are the core of scientific activities; “the accurate, unambiguous and operational representation of them” (p. 1) are crucial for the strict recording and analysis of examinations. Hypotheses are suppositions on how variables behave. In a correlational analysis, the null hypothesis (Ho) is the assumption that there is no relationship between the two measured occurrences (Lund Research Ltd, 2013; Everitt, 1998). Alternatively, the supplementary hypothesis (Ha) is a statement of the anticipated result of the study. Variables in this study are generally grouped into two, the incivility measures and the job satisfaction measures. Research Question 1: What is the prevalence of incivility among the junior enlisted sailors in the Navy located in Bahrain? Research Question 2: What is the level of job satisfaction among the junior enlisted sailors in the Navy located in Bahrain? American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 95 Research Question 3: To what extent does workplace incivility contribute to job satisfaction among the junior enlisted sailors in the Navy? Ho: There is no statistically significant linear relationship between workplace incivility and job satisfaction. Ha: There is a statistically significant linear relationship between workplace incivility and job satisfaction. Data Analysis Microsoft Excel and IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software were used for data analysis in this study. SPSS is a solid analytical tool used to process challenging statistical methods (Pallant, 2013). SPSS can be used in data entry and analysis in order to generate tables and graphs (Pallant, 2013; Gerber & Finn, 2013). Collected data from the survey was taken from the web-based survey and copied to Microsoft Excel. In this study, bivariate analysis was done using SPSS. The survey data extracted from survey monkey was saved in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. These were assembled by deleting unnecessary inputs. Data manipulation such as averaging was also done to produce the data needed later on for the analysis. In addition, R studio’s “sem” and “semPlot” packages were particularly used in this study for path analysis. Statistical Treatment of Data Analysis for this study was done in three levels, descriptive statistics, bivariate statistics and multivariate statistics. For the descriptive analysis, the frequency was used to describe the sample population in terms of group counts. In addition, arithmetic mean was used to identify the incivility and job satisfaction score of the participants based on the given scoring method of the two instruments used-- Uncivil Workplace Behavior Scale and the Job Satisfaction Survey. In this study, the spearman’s rank order measure (Lund Research Ltd, 2013) was used to assess the monotonic relationship between the prevalence of incivility and job satisfaction among the junior enlisted soldiers in the navy. A monotonic relationship leads to one of the following to occur: (1) as one variable value increases, the value of the other variable increases as well; or (2) as one variable values increases, the value of the other variable decreases (Lund Research Ltd, 2013; McDonald, 2014). This served as the bivariate statistic measure for the study that will also answer the primary research question. Path Analysis was used in this study to grasp patterns of correlation within a defined network which is also known as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) (Bullmore et. al., 2000). SEM is a multivariate analysis used to analyzed structural relationship (Kaplan, 2010) and is a combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Kline, 2011). Specifically, this study utilized causal models with latent variables. Causal models with latent variables represent a mix of path analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, which have been called a hybrid model (Kaplan, 2010; Kline, 2007). In this study, two latent variables namely incivility and job satisfaction will be evaluated, with incivility as the exogenous variable and job satisfaction as the endogenous variable. Validity and Reliability Validity refers to a valid measurement of what is to be measured while reliability while reliability measures consistency (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2010). The validity and reliability of this study were based on the use of the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985) and the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (Martin & Hine, 2005). Job Satisfaction Survey JSS was originally developed for human service organizations however, it has been widely used for different organizations and its reliability and validity has been measured repeatedly. Based on a sample of 2870, internal consistency reliabilities were computed. Coefficient alpha ranges from 0.60 for coworkers to 0.01 for the total scale (Spector, 1985). 96 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire The Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (UWBQ) developed by Martin and Hine (2005) was tested for validity and reliability by the authors themselves using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. According to Martin and Hine’s (2005) study, the four factors formed in the questionnaire (Hostility, Privacy Invasion, Exclusionary Behavior, and Gossiping) revealed a high level of internal reliability. These also received further support from a confirmatory factor analysis on a hold-out sample (Martin & Hine, 2005). According to Martin and Hine, “[a] series of correlation and regression analyses revealed that the UWBQ subscales exhibited sound convergent, divergent, and concurrent validity” (p. 477). Results The primary purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of incivility and its relationship with job satisfaction among junior enlisted navy based in Bahrain. To address its objective, the study utilized descriptive and correlational research design. Nonparametric correlation using Spearman’s rho was used primarily to analyze the data and the research question. Description of the Sample and Population This study consisted of 49 junior enlisted sailors (pay grade E1-E6) who agreed to participate in the online survey. Participants were invited via email and posts in Facebook groups that catered to Navy sailors located in Bahrain. Descriptive Analysis Descriptive statistics aims to summarize the sample of collected data from the demographic questionnaire and introduced an in-depth description of the proposed population. Out of the 49 respondents, 16 (32.65%) are male and 27 (55.10%) are female. However, 6 (12.24%) of them refused to give their gender. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF GENDER RESPONSES GENDER RESPONSE PERCENT RESPONSE COUNT MALE 37.2% 16 FEMALE 62.8% 27 OTHERS 0.0% 0 ANSWERED QUESTION 43 SKIPPED QUESTION 6 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF RATE RESPONSES PAY GRADE RESPONSE PERCENT RESPONSE COUNT E1 7.0% 3 E2 11.6% 5 E3 27.9% 12 E4 25.6% 11 E5 25.6% 11 E6 2.3% 1 NONE OF THE ABOVE 0 ANSWERED QUESTION 43 SKIPPED QUESTION 6 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 97 E-1 to E-9 is the enlisted pay grades of enlisted service members in the United States Armed Forces. In this study, Navy enlisted grades E-1 to E-6 participated. E-1 is the most junior enlisted while E-6 is the highest of the junior enlisted. E-1 is called a Seaman Recruit, E-2 is a Seaman Apprentice, E-3 is a Seaman, E-4 is a Petty Officer Third Class, E-5 is a Petty Officer Second Class, and E-6 is a Petty Officer First Class. In the Navy, E-1 has had the lowest summary of rate response, and E-3s had the rate with the most number of respondents. There were 12 (27.9%) respondents who were E-3s. E-4 and E-5 had the same frequency, and together, they comprise 51.2% (22) of the sample. For E-1, E-2, and E-6, there were 3, 5 and 1 respondents respectively. However, 6 respondents refused to answer this question. TABLE 3 AVERAGE INCIVILITY AND JOB SATISFACTION SCORE SUBSCALE MEAN SCORE STANDARD DEVIATION HOSTILITY 3.14 0.80 PRIVACY INVASION 2.38 0.94 EXCLUSIONARY BEHAVIOR 2.88 0.69 GOSSIPING 2.83 0.78 OVERALL LEVEL OF INCIVILITY 2.81 0.68 PAY 3.42 0.60 PROMOTION 3.14 0.52 SUPERVISION 3.73 0.81 FRINGE BENEFIT 3.57 0.74 CONTINGENT REWARDS 3.510 0.99 OPERATING CONDITIONS 3.33 0.68 COWORKERS 3.60 0.64 NATURE OF WORK 3.68 0.94 COMMUNICATION 3.70 0.71 OVERALL LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION 3.59 0.31 The highest mean score for incivility is 6; in this case, the incivility subscale with the highest score is hostility (3.14) while the lowest is privacy invasion (2.38). This means that incivility incidence connected to aggression and anger is the most common on the respondent’s workplace and that corresponding to intrusion to the personal life of another person is relatively rare. In terms of variability of the mean scores of each respondent, privacy invasion is the most varied while exclusionary behavior is the least varied. According to the scoring method of the job satisfaction survey of Spector (1985), in the convention, an average of 4 or more represents satisfaction whereas mean responses of 3 or less represent dissatisfaction. Mean scores between 3 and 4 are ambivalence. In this case, all scales have average satisfaction are between 3 and 4 which is uncertain. Subsequently, the participants were found to be most satisfied with their supervision and found to be least satisfied with a promotion. TABLE 5 CORRELATION BETWEEN INCIVILITY AND JOB SATISFACTION CORRELATION COEFFICIENT SIGNIFICANCE SPEARMAN’S RHO -.314 .030 98 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 From table 5, the correlation coefficient is -0.314 and since the significance value is less than 0.05, at 5% level of significance, there is a significant negative relationship between incivility and job satisfaction. In essence, as the level of incivility increases, job satisfaction decreases. Figure 1: Path Diagram of the Standardized Model for the Causal Flow of Variables Figure 1 shows the path diagram for the analysis of the observed and latent variables. The values associated with each path are standardized regression coefficients. These indicate the change in Y when X changes by one standard deviation. That is, a one standard deviation change in incivility causes 0.67 changes in the standard deviation of job satisfaction. Hostility Gossiping Privacy Invasion Exclusionary Behavior Communic- ation Nature of Work Coworkers Contingent Rewards Operating Conditions Fringe Benefit Supervision Promotion Pay Incivility Job satisfaction 0.67 0.83 0.93 0.6 0.88 -0.23 -0.19 0.07 0.82 -0.87 0.4 -0.44 0.0 0.27 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 99 General Discussion and Theoretical Implications According to Klima (2014), incivility incurs a significant financial cost to organizations. With the recent Department of Defense’s budget cuts (Snodgrass, 2014), military components such as the Navy could experience direct and indirect cost associated with incivility. These incurred costs are impacted by sailors' absenteeism, lower productivity, performance, lower morale and lack of commitment (McKay, Cristina, & Chung, 2010; Lieber, 2010). More importantly, the Navy’s primary concern should continue to be the health and well-being of its sailors; especially their junior enlisted members. This pilot study used a quantitative approach to examine if workplace incivility influences job satisfaction of junior enlisted sailors and their intent to reenlist. Leaders should be aware of the impacts of incivility and establish proper procedures to mitigate this adverse behavior, to counter the impacts of incivility on the Navy’s overall mission when it comes to protecting the interest of the United States and its citizens (Hussain & Hassan, 2015). Furthermore, research suggests that supervisors who provide support to their subordinates have a positive impact on employee job satisfaction (McGilton, McGillis-Hall, Wodchis & Petroz, 2007). Limitations and Future Research In this study, convenience sampling was used to select the sample population. Although convenience sampling allows time and cost-efficient data collection, it posed the risk of getting biased results since the data is not typically a representative of the entire population (Constanza, Blacksmith, & Coats, 2015). Other sampling techniques could have been used if a list of all junior enlisted U.S. Navy was obtained. This could also increase the sample size (n=49). In addition, this study was limited to U.S. sailors stationed in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Results could be different if a different sample population was included rather than those located in the Kingdom of Bahrain alone. REFERENCES 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. Becher, J., & Visovsky, C. (2012). Horizontal violence in nursing. MEDSURG Nursing, 21(4), 210-214. Bullmore, E., Horwitz, B., Honey, G., Brammer M., Williams, S., & Sharma, T. (2000). How good is good enough in path analysis? Neuroimage, 11, 289–301. Burr, R. G., Palinkas, L. A., Banta, G. R. (1993). Physical and psychological effects of sustained shipboard operations on U.S. Navy personnel. Current Psychology. 12(2), 113-129. Buys, N., Matthews, L.R., & Randall, C.(2010). Employees’ perceptions of the management of workplace stress. International Journal of Disability Management. 5(2), 25–31. Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). I get by with a little help from my friends: The interaction of chronic pain and organizational support on performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 215-227. Byrne, Z. S. & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 54-72. Caza, B. B., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). From insult to injury: explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 335–350. Retrieved from http://lsa.umich.edu/psych/lilia- cortina-lab/Caza%20&%20Cortina%202007.pdf Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184. Clark, C. (2012). Healing from the bitter pill of incivility. Minority Nurse. Retrieved from CINAHL Complete. Clark, C. M., & Springer, P. J. (2010).Academic nurse leaders’ role in fostering culture of civility in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(6), 319-325. 100 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. doi:10.1037/1076- 8998.6.1.64. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272-288. doi:10.1037/a0014934. Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., & Meredith. (2015). Convenience samples and teaching organizational research methods. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist. 53(1), 137-140. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. D’Ambra, A. M., & Andrews, D. R. (2014). Incivility, retention and new graduate nurses: an integrated review of literature. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(6). 735-742. Delaney, L. (2010). Descriptive statistics: simply telling a story. African Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, 4(1), 43-48. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500. Englund, C. E., Naitoh, P., Ryman, D. H., & Hodgdon, J. A. (1983). Moderate physical work effects on performance and mood during sustained operations (SUSOPS). (NHRC TR 83-6). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center. Everitt, B. (1998). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ewing, P. (2010). January 16). Cruiser CO relieved for 'cruelty'. Navy Times. Retrieved http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_cowpens_cofired_011310/ Fairbanks, A., & Walrafen, N. (2013). Tackling horizontal violence. Nursing Economic$, 31(1), 42-43. Fitzgerald, S. M., Rumrill, P. D., Jr., & Schenker. J. D. (2004). Correlational designs in rehabilitation research. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20(2). 143-150. Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2010). Research Methods in Business Studies (4th ed.) Harlow, UK: Pearson. Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M.(2012). Cyber incivility @ work: the new age of interpersonal deviance. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking. 15(3), 148-154. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0336. Harkreader, M. (2008). Disruptive and intimidating behaviors. Nursing Perspectives. 3(2), 16-19. Hicks-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on career and organizational attitudes and perceptions. Personnel Review, 29(3), 324–345. doi: 10.1108/00483480010324689 Hussain, M., & Hassan, H. (2015). Military leadership and implications for business leaders in the light of alternative theories. Pakistan Journal of Science, 67(1), 94-101. Hutton, S., & Gates, D. (2008). Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct care staff. AAOHN Journal, 56(4), 168-175. Jehangir, M., Kareem, N., Khan, A., Tahir Jan, M., & Soherwardi, S. (2011). Effects of job stress on job performance & job satisfaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(7), 453-465. Kaplan, D. (2008).Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Kelley, J. (2014). Strengthening our naval profession through a culture of leader development. Naval War College Review, 67(1). Retrieved from https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/da4c554a-2895- 4521-83d9-ce9b9c8d19a7/Strengthening-Our-Naval-Profession-through-a-Cultu.aspx Kline, Rex (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Kovach, C. R., Simpson, M. R., Reitmaier, A. B., Johnson, A., & Kelber, S. T. (2010). Do personality traits predict work outcomes of certified nursing assistants? Research in Gerontological Nursing, 3(4), 253-61. doi:10.3928/19404921-20100330-03. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: a field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 61-81. Retrieved from PsycINFO. American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 101 Lachman, V. (2014). Ethical issues in the disruptive behaviors of incivility, bullying, and horizontal/lateral violence. MEDSURG Nursing, 23(1), 56-60. Laschinger, H. K., Wong, C. A., Grau, A. L. (2013). Authentic leadership, empowerment and burnout: a comparison in new graduates and experienced nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 541-552. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01375.x Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96(6), 1258- 1274. doi:10.1037/a0024442. Lerner, N., Resnick, B., Galik, E., & Flynn, L. (2011). Job satisfaction of nursing assistants. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(11), 473-478. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182346e7a. Longo, J. (2013). Bullying and the older nurse. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 950-955. Lund Research Ltd. (2013). The ultimate IBM® SPSS® Statistics guides. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/ Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 477-490. doi:10.1037/1076- 8998.10.4.477. McDonald, J.H. (2014). Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House Publishing. McGilton, K.S., McGillis, Hall L., Wodchis, W.P. & Petroz, U. (2007). Supervisory support, job stress, and job satisfaction among long-term care nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(7/8), 366-372. doi: 10.1097/01.NNA.0000285115.60689.4 McKay, R., Cristina, C., & Chung, D. (2010).Thinking Strategically about Workplace Bullying in Organizations. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 15(4), 73-93. McNamara, S. (2012). Incivility in nursing: unsafe nurse, unsafe patients. AORN Journal, 95(4), 535-540. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2012.01.020. Miles, D. E., Borman, W.C., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,10(1/2), 51-57. Miner, K. N., Settles, I. H., Brady, C., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. (2012). Experiencing incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 340-372. Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F.,& Locander, W. B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust on salesperson’s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26, 19-26. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134260102 Myers, J. L., & Well, A. D. (2003). Research Design and Statistical Analysis (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Nickerson, J., Yen, J. C., & Mahoney, J. T. (2012). Exploring the problem-finding and problem-solving approach for designing organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 52-72. doi: 10.5465/amp.2011.0106. Norland-Tilburg, E. V. (1990). Controlling error in evaluation instruments. Journal of Extension. [On- line], 28(2). Retrieved fromhttp://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/tt2.html Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior, Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.006. Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(1), 326-357. Reio, T. R., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237-264. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20020. Reio, T. R. (2011). Supervisor and coworker incivility: Testing the work frustration-aggression model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 54-68. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 102 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 Roberts, S., Scherer, L., & Bowyer, C. (2011). Job stress and incivility: What role does psychological capital play? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 449-458. doi:10.1177/1548051811409044. Rowe, M., & Sherlock, H. (2005). Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: Do burned outnurses eat their young? Journal of Nursing Management, 13, 242-248. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2004.00533.x Schonberg, J. (2012). Maximizing minimum manning. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 138(1), 52-57. Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., & Zechmeister, J. (2010). Research methods in Psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Smith, L. M., Andrusyszyn, M., & Laschinger, H. (2010). Effects of workplace incivility and empowerment on newly graduated nurses’ organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 1004-1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01165.x Snodgrass, G. M. (2014). Keep a weather eye on the horizon: A Navy officer retention study. Naval War College Review, 67(4), 64-92. Soldatova, L. N., & Rzhetsky, A. De Grave, K., & King, R. D. (2013). Representation of probabilistic scientific knowledge. Journal of Biomedical Semantics. 4(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-4-S1- S7. Theuri, P. M., & Turner, L. D. (2002). Conducting survey research through an enhanced online web survey procedure. Journal of Internet Commerce, 1(4). 37-53. The United States Navy (n.d.). Honor Courage Commitment. Retrieved from http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=193 U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2012). 10 U.S.C. 893 - Art. 93. Cruelty and maltreatment. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title10/USCODE-2011- title10-subtitleA-partII-chap47-subchapX-sec893 Wachs, J. (2009). Workplace incivility, bullying, and mobbing. AAOHN Journal, 57(2), 88. doi. 10.3928/08910162-20090201-05. Retrieved from CINAHL Waters, J. (2013). Correlational Research Guidelines: Conducting Correlational Research. Retrieved from https://www.capilanou.ca/psychology/student-resources/research-guidelines/Correlational- Research-Guidelines/ Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., & Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204- 213. Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 343– 357. Wolfson, N., & Kraiger, K. (2011). The relationship between diversity climate perception and workplace attitudes. The Psychologist-Manager Journal. 14(3), 161-176. American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 103 QUESTIONNAIRE During the past twelve months, or as long as you have been with your current organization, how often have you been in a situation where a supervisor or co-worker: (please circle the relevant letter in the right hand column) N ev er Ra re ly O cc as io na lly O fte n Ve ry O fte n 1. Avoided consulting you when they would normally be expected to do so. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Talked about you behind your back. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Was excessively slow in returning your phone messages or emails without good reason for the delay. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Used an inappropriate tone when speaking to you. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Was unreasonably slow in dealing with matters that were important to your work. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Gossiped behind your back. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Opened your desk drawers without prior permission. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Publicly discussed your confidential personal information. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Took items from your desk without prior permission. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Spoke to you in an aggressive tone of voice. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Intentionally failed to pass on information that you should have been made aware of. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Made snide remarks about you. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Took stationery from your desk without later returning it. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Read communications addressed to you, such as emails and faxes. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Raised their voice while speaking to you. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Did not consult you in reference to a decision you should have been involved in. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Rolled their eyes at you. 1 2 3 4 5 *Used with permission from author Dr. Don Hines 104 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 Incivility and Job Satisfaction Survey PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT. D isa gr ee v er y m uc h D isa gr ee m od er at el y D isa gr ee sl ig ht ly A gr ee sl ig ht ly A gr ee m od er at el y A gr ee v er y m uc h 1 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 Raises are too few and far between. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 *Used with permission from author Paul Spector detailed online for researchers. American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016 105 Demographic Questions 1. What is your gender? Choose one. A. Male B. Female C. Other 2. What is your age? ____ 3. What is your Rate? Choose one. A. E1 B. E2 C. E3 D. E4 E. E5 F. E6 G. None of the above. Please explain. 4. What is your Rating (Specialty)? 106 American Journal of Management Vol. 16(4) 2016