




































Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal  

Vol. 19 (1), February 2022, 51-66 
ISSN:  2598-6368(online); 1693-7236(print)                                                                 

        humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id  http://dx.doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v19i1.6 

The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: 

Workplace stress or organizational citizenship behavior?  

Narayanan Annalakshmi, Philip Roshni, Sanjay Abhirami, Pant Udita  

Department of Psychology, Bharathiar University, India 
Corresponding author: narayanan.annalakshmi@buc.edu.in 
 

 

Introduction 

Workplace incivility refers to the exchange of what appears to be insignificant insensitive 
words and actions that typically go against the traditional norms of how individuals should 
conduct them in the workplace (C. Pearson & Porath, 2009). It is understood as a global 
problem that affects employees across multiple professions (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Those 
who observe incivility tend to have a negative reaction towards instigators, but their reactions 
towards the targets remain unchanged (Reich & .Hershcovis, 2015). Various international 
studies (Cortina et al., 2001; C. Pearson & Porath, 2009; Torkelson et al., 2016) and Asian 
studies (D’Cruz & Rayner, 2012; Lim & Lee, 2011; Yeung & Griffin, 2008; Zhang et al., 
2018) have reported that most of the employees experience a shade of incivility at their 
workplace. The present study will provide insight into how psychological factors and 
workplace incivility can affect workplace stress and OCB, all of which have implications for 
the employee as well as the organization. 

Incivility may arise from different sources, including supervisors, coworkers, and even 
clients or customers. Supervisor incivility is the low-intensity aberrant behavior by 
supervisors to harm the subordinate with unclear intention to violate the standards for mutual 
respect prescribed in the workplace (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Coworker incivility 
denotes the uncivil behaviors instigated by individual coworkers, such as hurtful remarks, 
rude emails, shunning, and gossip (Reio, T. G. & Sanders-Reio, 2011). Customer incivility 

ART ICLE  INFO  

 

AB ST R ACT  

 

Article history 

Received September 11, 2021 

Revised February 14, 2022 

Accepted February 17, 2022 

 The impact of the work environment on employees has been well 
researched, with little focus on the pathways of such relationships. 
This study aimed to examine whether workplace incivility and 
personality predict workplace stress and organizational citizenship 
behavior (OCB). The role of John Henryism (JH), Probabilistic 
Orientation (PO), work self-efficacy, and resilience on workplace 
stress and OCB was also explored. The data were collected through a 
survey using self-report measures of perception of fair interpersonal 
treatment in the workplace, workplace incivility, work self-efficacy, 
JH, PO, workplace stress, and OCB from 206 (M=120, F=86) 
employees from the IT industry, aged 22 to 42 (M=30.47, SD=5.60). 
Multiple regression analyses revealed that workplace incivility  (from 
supervisor and client)  positively predicted workplace stress. At the 
same time, coworker incivility did not predict workplace stress. On 
the contrary, workplace incivility (supervisor, coworker, and clients) 
did not predict OCB significantly. JH and work self-efficacy 
positively predicted OCB, while PO negatively predicted OCB. This 
research provides new directions for future research that workplace 
stress is predicted by supervisor and client incivility, and OCB is not 
predicted by workplace incivility. 

 

    

 
Keywords 

organization citizenship behavior; 

probabilistic orientation; 

workplace incivility; 

workplace stress. 

 

 

mailto:humanitas@psy.uad.ac.id
http://dx.doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v19i1.6
mailto:narayanan.annalakshmi@buc.edu.in


52   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

indicates deviant behaviors of low-intensity performed by someone who is a client or 
customer that reflects unclear intent to hurt an employee and violates social norms of courtesy 
and mutual respect (Sliter et al., 2010). Incivility develops a toxic workplace which causes 
problems among the employees like depression (Lim & Lee, 2011), stress (Adams & 
Webster, 2013; Beattie & Griffin, 2014), poor memory recall (Porath & Erez, 2007), low 
affective trust (Cameron & Webster, 2011), intense aggressive behaviors (Blau & Andersson, 
2005; C. M. Pearson et al., 2000), depletion in job performance (Blau & Andersson, 2005; 
Porath & Erez, 2007; Rhee et al., 2017; Schilpzand et al., 2016), and low job satisfaction 
(Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Wilson & Holmvall, 2013). 
Thus, incivility affects the overall well-being of the employees and the organization. 

A previous study found that workplace incivility contributes to job stress (Shabir et al., 
2014). John Henryism, for instance, refers to expending high effort in the context of 
prolonged exposure to stress as a form of coping (James et al., 1983). John Henryism (JH) 
refers to a strong behavioral predisposition to actively cope with psychosocial and 
environmental stressors (Angner et al., 2011; James, 1994; James et al., 1983). Researchers 
have found that African Americans may use JH to face psychosocial stressors (James, 1994; 
James et al., 1983). JH is related to various lifestyle risk factors for cancer (Van Loon et al., 
2001). Moreover, men employed in lower rank professions who were high on JH had 
significantly higher risks of acute myocardial infarction, even when adjusted for age (Mujahid 
et al., 2017). Also, JH served as a protective factor against PTSD in intimate partner violence 
experienced by White women (Kramer et al., 2015). JH can influence how one perceives and 
responds to workplace stress. 

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) refer to behaviors voluntarily performed 
by employees that contribute to an organization as a system to satisfy its functions 
systematically (Organ, 1988, 1990). Workplace incivility can result in employees perceiving 
that the social exchange relationship they shared with their organization is damaged, resulting 
in poor OCB (Taylor et al., 2011). Research on workplace aggression and abusive supervision 
also has found that higher workplace mistreatment results in less OCB in employees 
(Greitemeyer & Rudolph, 2003; Zellars et al., 2002). Merely attending to or observing 
workplace incivility events can result in employees engaging in less OCB (Porath & Erez, 
2009). Incivility also negatively speculates individuals’ OCB (Mao et al., 2019). 

In a work context, self-efficacy is an essential antecedent of motivation. Studies show 
that individuals high on self-efficacy are more optimistic and determined about their ability 
to reach goals by applying their knowledge to specific tasks (Bandura, 1997; Chen et al., 
2004). Self-efficacy and stress are two concepts that are connected. Individuals differ in how 
they perceive external demand or pressure, with some perceiving them as a threat while others 
perceiving them as a challenge. It is found that those who have high self-efficacy beliefs tend 
to perceive such external demands as a challenge instead of seeing them as threats (Chemers 
et al., 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). There is a significant negative correlation between 
job stress and self-efficacy among psychiatric nurses' (El-Azzab et al., 2019; Zaki, 2016). 
Self-efficacy controls the stress-strain association (Grau et al., 2000). Those with high job 
self-efficacy and increased accountability have an increased incidence of OCB (Royle et al., 
2005), and general self-efficacy positively predicted citizenship behaviors in men 
(Beauregard, 2012).  

Resilience refers to the dynamic capacity of the system to successfully adapt to 
conditions challenging its development, viability, and sustenance (Masten, 2013). It is 
indicated by positive outcomes despite being exposed to factors that increase one’s 
vulnerability (Carlton et al., 2006; Tiềt & Huizinga, 2002). Nowadays, there is an increasing 
interest in how employees in the business world manage the challenges they face in their 
workplace (Badran & Kafafy, 2008; Caverley, 2005). Few studies have reported a positive 
relationship between employee resilience and OCB (Paul et al., 2016; Sari & Wahyuni, 2019). 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 53 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

Resilience is a phenomenon that indicates positive adaptation in the face of challenges or 
adversity. However, it may also be possible that a resilient individual, in the context of 
workplace incivility, may respond to it by positive behavior like organizational citizenship 
behavior (OCB).  

Probabilistic orientation (PO) represents a personality orientation indicating a neutral 
locus of control (Annalakshmi, 2021; Narayanan, 1977). Several studies have shown that PO 
is associated with mental health, wellbeing, and resilience (Annalakshmi, 2004; Priya, 1997; 
Usha, 2005). Also, the relationship between PO and perceived self-efficacy is mediated by 
ego-resiliency (Annalakshmi, 2020). Personality factors like JH, self-efficacy, resilience, and 
PO can affect workplace stress and OCB. The rationale for the present study is that since 
individual factors and one’s experience in the workplace can influence individual and 
organizational outcomes, it may be worthwhile to examine how certain personality factors 
and workplace incivility experiences influence outcomes like workplace stress and OCB.  

Civility at the workplace helps create a favorable working environment for the 
employees and thus aids in forming a stable and productive organization. Workplace incivility 
grows up as a harmful habitat for employees to work, developing various physical and mental 
health problems. Hence, studying the factors associated with workplace incivility, workplace 
stress, and OCB deserves urgent attention, owing to its potential consequences on individual 
employees and the organization. The present research examines the relationship between 
workplace incivility and certain personality factors on the one hand and certain outcome 
variables like workplace stress and OCB on the other end. Specifically, the study examines 
the effect of personality factors (John Henryism, work self-efficacy, PO, and resilience) and 
workplace incivility on two outcome variables, namely, workplace stress and OCB. Specific 
to the current study, we operationalized work incivility in two ways: (a) the level of 
interpersonal fairness perceived by employees in their organization and (b) employee 
perception of unfair behavior or treatment by supervisors, coworkers, and customers. It is 
hypothesized that personality factors included in the study will positively predict OCB and 
negatively predict workplace stress. Further, it is also hypothesized that workplace incivility 
will positively predict workplace stress and negatively predict OCB. These hypotheses are 
tested in the study. 

Method 

Research Design 

A quantitative research design was adopted for the study, and the data was collected from IT 
employees across India via an online survey. The researchers sought permission from the 
company officials to collect the data and obtained informed consent from the participants 
before giving the survey. Participation in this study was entirely voluntary, and the data was 
collected in an anonymized manner.  

Participants 

The study was conducted on 206 IT professionals (120 men and 86 women) aged 22-42 years 
(M=30.47, SD=5.60). The mean number of years of work experience was 7.50 years 
(SD=4.24), and the mean number of years worked in the organization there were serving 
during this study was 5.13 years (SD=3.36). The participants were recruited from Kochi, 
Bangalore, Coimbatore, Chennai, Kolkata, and Delhi IT-based industries. Out of this, 74.3% 
of participants worked for Multi-National Companies (MNC), and 25.7% were from private 
organizations. A brief description of the sample is presented in Table 1. 
 
 

 



54   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

Table 1 

Description of Participants 
No Variable Percentage 

1 Marital Status  

 Single 49.0% 

 Married 41.2% 

 Divorced   6.4% 

 Engaged   3.4% 

2 Religion  

 Hindu 78.3% 

 Christian 16.7% 

 Muslim   2.0% 

 Did not identify with any religion   3.0% 

3 Community  

 FC/OC 61.2% 

 BC 28.6% 

 MBC     .5% 

 SC   2.4% 

 Did not disclose   7.3% 

4 Place where most parts of their life were spent  

 City 39.9% 

 Metro cities 33.8% 

 Small towns 20.2% 

 Rural area   6.1% 

5 Education  

 Professional degree 39.8% 

 Bachelor’s degree 38.8% 

 Master’s degree 21.4% 

6 Position  

 Manager 18.9% 

 Senior analyst 36.9% 

 Analyst 28.2% 

 Data Operator   4.4% 

 Web developers   5.3% 

 Consultants   6.3% 

Note: FC, BC, MBC, and SC are categories currently recognized by the Government of India as categories 

based on a historical hierarchy of caste in India to promote representation of the various equity groups in 

education and employment. 

Instruments 

Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale (Donovan et al., 1998). This 18-items scale 
purports to measure employees' perceptions of the fairness of interpersonal treatment in their 
work environment. Specifically, the scale assesses an employee's perceptions of how their 
supervisors and coworkers in their organization treat them. The scale is composed of two 
subscales, supervisor and coworker treatment. The respondents are asked to rate each 
experience related to their workplace using a five-point rating scale, ranging from 0 (never) 
to 4 (many times). A sample item from the scale is "Employees are treated with respect.” The 
Cronbach's alpha for the scale on the present sample is.75. 

Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001). This scale measures uncivil behaviors 
from supervisors, coworkers, and customers. The scale consists of 3 subscales: supervisor 
incivility (7 items), coworkers incivility (7 items), and customer incivility (5 items). The 
respondents are asked to rate each experience related to their workplace using a five-point 
rating scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (many times). A sample item from the supervisor 
incivility subscale is "Your supervisor made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you.” 
A sample item from coworker incivility is “Your coworker addressed you in unprofessional 
terms, either publicly or privately.” A sample item from customer incivility is “Your 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 55 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

customers/clients doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility.” 
The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale on the present sample for the supervisor incivility, 
coworker incivility, and customer incivility are .85, .90, and .86, respectively. The 
Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale is .93. 

John Henryism Active Coping Scale (James, 1994). This scale is a 12-item scale that 
measures active coping. The scale intends to capture predisposition toward active, high-effort 
coping with psychosocial and environmental stressors. The respondents are asked to rate each 
experience related to their workplace using five response options, ranging from 0 (completely 
false) to four (completely true). A sample item from the scale is “When things don't go the 
way I want them to, that makes me work even harder.” The Cronbach's alpha for the scale on 
the present sample is .84. 

Probabilistic Orientation Questionnaire (POQ) (Narayanan, 1977). The POQ consists 
of 30 items that purport to measure the phenomenological personality orientation of the 
respondent. A short form of POQ consisting of 14 items from the original scale was used in 
this study. The respondents are required to indicate their agreement with the items using a 
'yes' or 'no' response. A sample item from this scale is “Event by themselves are just neutral 
ones; we only label them ‘‘good luck’’ or ‘‘odd-luck.” The Cronbach's alpha for the scale on 
the present sample is .68. 

Workplace stress survey (American Institute of Stress, 1998). The scale consists of 10 
items that assess the workplace stress of the subject. The respondents are asked to rate each 
item using a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A 
sample item from this scale is “Most of the time, I feel I have very little control over my life 
at work". The Cronbach's alpha for the scale on the present sample is .76. 

Work Self-Efficacy Scale (WSEC) (Avallone et al., 2007). The original scale consists 
of 10 items that assess perceptions regarding specific work domains. However, only the first 
nine items were selected for this project. Since item 6 and item 10 were pertaining to working 
with others and were overlapping, only item number 6 was included. The respondents are 
asked to rate each item using a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very well). 
A sample item from this scale is “Thinking of future work, how well can you finish assigned 
work.” The Cronbach's alpha for the scale on the present sample is .86. 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C) (Fox et al., 2011). The scale 
aims to measure the frequency of citizenship behaviors at the workplace. Only ten items from 
the 20 items of the checklist that were most relevant to the culture and context of the sample 
in the present study were selected for use in this study. The respondents are asked to rate each 
item using a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always). A sample item from 
the scale is “How often have you done this in your present job - Volunteered for extra work 
assignments." The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale on the present sample is.87. 

Bharathiar University Resilience Scale (BURS) (Annalakshmi, 2009). The 30-items 
scale purports to measure the resilience of an individual. Only ten items from the original 30 
items scale were selected for this study. The respondents are asked to rate each item using a 
5-point rating scale, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (very well). A sample item from 
this scale includes “I always seek people and opportunity to overcome my difficulties and 
grow up". The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale on the present sample is .75. 

Procedure 

A link to the online survey was shared via Google Forms to potential participants working in 
IT companies, requesting them to share it with their contacts in the field. The researchers have 
also circulated a few questionnaires by visiting various IT companies. 

Data Analysis 

IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 was used to do the data analysis. A one-way ANOVA, 
correlations, and hierarchical multiple regressions were used to analyze the data.  



56   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

Results 

A one-way ANOVA was carried out to examine the gender differences with regard to study 
variables. It was found that males and females differed on interpersonal fair treatment [F 
(1,204) = 5.97, p < .05], supervisor incivility [F (1,204) = 5.30, p< .05], coworker incivility 
[F (1,204) = 12.56, p< .05] and overall incivility [F (1,204) = 8.50, p< .05] respectively. 
Males [M = 26.23, SD = 8.46] were found to have higher scores on interpersonal fair treatment 
than females [M = 28.95, SD = 6.98]. Females [M = 7.95, SD = 5.22] were found to have 
higher scores on supervisor incivility than males [M = 6.14, SD = 5.81]. Also, females [M = 
7.58, SD = 5.64] were found to have higher scores on coworker incivility than males [M = 
4.79, SD = 5.52]. In addition to that, females [M = 19.51, SD = 12.51] have higher level of 
overall incivility than males [M = 14.06, SD = 13.74]. In sum, males reported higher levels 
of interpersonal fair treatment than females. Females reported higher levels of supervisor 
incivility and coworker incivility than males. In addition to that, females have higher level of 
overall incivility than males.  

No significant gender difference was found on clients incivility [F (1,204) = 2.01, p > 
.05], John Henryism [F (1,204) = .06, p > .05], probabilistic orientation [F (1,204) = .01, p> 
.05], workplace stress [F (1,204) = .13, p> .05], work self-efficacy [F (1,204) = .14, p> .05], 
organizational citizenship behavior [F (1,204) = .00, p> .05] and resilience [F (1,204) = 1.55, 
p> .05] respectively. It is interesting to note that males and females did not differ on any of 
the personality factors or outcome variables included in this study. They also did not differ 
with regard to clients’ incivility.  

Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the unique 
contribution of independent variables on the dependent variables, viz., workplace stress and 
organizational citizenship behavior, respectively. Variables are entered as follows: gender, 
interpersonal fair treatment, supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, client incivility, John 
Henryism, probabilistic orientation, work self-efficacy, and resilience. The results are 
presented in Table 2 and Table 3. 
 

Table 2  
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis to Predict Workplace Stress 

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 

 B β B β B β 

Constant 19.21***  14.12***  17.4***  

Gender   -.33   -.030 -1.32  .10      -1.03 -.08 

Interpersonal Fair Treatment      .09  .11        .07  .08 

Supervisor Incivility         .28**  .25         .23*  .20 

Coworker Incivility      -.02 -.02        .03  .03 

Clients Incivility          .34**  .22         .28*  .19 

John Henryism           -.03 -.04 

Probabilistic Orientation          -.14 -.06 

Work Self-efficacy          -.15 -.13 

Resilience            .17  .14 

R2 .001                  .21                  .24 

F .130 10.86*** 6.83*** 

∆R2 .000 .21***                  .03 

∆F .130 13.53***                1.63 
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 

 

 

 

 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 57 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

Table 3 

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis to Predict Organizational Citizenship Behavior 

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 

 B   β B β B β 

Constant 25.41***  30.2***    10.88*  

Gender     .02 .000         .62 .04          .53    .03 

Interpersonal Fair Treatment          -.18* -.19         -.05   -.06 

Supervisor Incivility           .06 .05         .11    .08 

Coworker Incivility           -.08 -.06        -.25   -.19 

Clients Incivility          -.01 -.01         .17    .10 

John Henryism              .19*    .19 

Probabilistic Orientation             -.50**   -.17 

Work Self-efficacy     .38**    .26 

Resilience            .16    .09 

 

R2 

 

.001 

 

.04 

 

                     .25 

F .001 1.65   7.41*** 

∆R2 .001 .04 .21*** 

∆F .001 2.07 14.06*** 
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 

 

Hierarchical multiple regression was run to determine if the addition of interpersonal 
fair treatment, supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, clients incivility, John Henryism, 
probabilistic orientation, work self-efficacy, and resilience improved the prediction of 
workplace stress over and above gender. A total of 24% variance in workplace stress was 
accounted for the predictor variables [ΔR2= .03, F (9,196) = 6.83, p < .001]. Model 2 variables 
(interpersonal fair treatment, supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, clients incivility) 
contribute an additional 21% of the variance in workplace stress [R2= .21, F (5,200) = 10.86, 
p < .001]. Model 3 variables (gender, interpersonal fair treatment, supervisor incivility, 
coworker incivility, clients incivility, John Henryism, probabilistic orientation, work self-
efficacy, and resilience) accounted additionally 3% of the variance on workplace stress [ΔR2= 
.03, F (9,196) = 6.83, p < .001].  

Hierarchical multiple regression was run to determine if the addition of interpersonal 
fair treatment, supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, clients incivility, John Henryism, 
Probabilistic orientation, work self-efficacy, and resilience improved the prediction of 
organizational citizenship behavior over and above gender. A total of 25% variance in 
organizational citizenship behavior was accounted for the predictor variables [ΔR2 = .21, F 
(9,196) = 7.41, p<.001]. Model 2 variables (interpersonal fair treatment, supervisor incivility, 
coworker incivility, clients incivility) contribute an additional 4% of the variance in 
organizational citizenship behavior [R2 = .04, F (5,200) = 1.65, p< .001]. Model 3 variables 
(gender, interpersonal fair treatment, supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, clients 
incivility, John Henryism, probabilistic orientation, work self-efficacy, resilience) accounted 
additionally 21% of the variance on organizational citizenship behavior [ΔR2 = .21, F (9,196) 
= 7.41, p< .001].   

Discussion 

Recent years have seen a surge in the number of employees in the IT industry. With a growing 
ratio of male and female employees, the preliminary analysis in the present study examined 
the gender differences in workplace incivility, workplace stress, and OCB. The results of the 
present study show that males perceived significantly higher interpersonal fair treatment but 
lower supervisor incivility, coworker incivility, and overall incivility than females. The 
results go in line with the findings of previous studies. Female employees report more 



58   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

workplace incivility than males (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001, 2013; 
Gabriel et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2021; Young et al., 2021), especially supervisors (Clay, 
2013; Hu & Liu, 2017; Hurst et al., 2017) and coworker incivility. Whether this may be due 
to women being perceived as less threatful who may not retaliate and soft targets needs to be 
examined in further studies. 

It is also found that supervisor incivility and client incivility positively predicted 
workplace stress. Supervisor incivility will trigger workplace stress in employees. Likewise, 
substandard behavior of clients (Sliter et al., 2010), unnecessary work overload, negligence 
of supervisors also can be a source of work-related stress (Lim et al., 2008). Further, 
supervisor incivility has a significant negative effect on the value congruence of the 
employees besides its influence on employees’ stress and recovery (Jiménez et al., 2015). 
Workplace incivility is more pervasive than abusive behavior in high-context cultures (Liu et 
al., 2019). Thus, supervisor incivility could lead to a host of negative factors, including high 
workplace stress. The present study also found that client incivility was positively predicting 
workplace stress. Customer incivility was positively related to emotional job demands and 
burnout experienced by employees, and coworkers' incivility was also positively related to 
burnout (Kim & Qu, 2018). The employees are under pressure to meet the client’s demands. 
Hence, client incivility can significantly influence employees’ perceived workplace stress. 
Further, work self-efficacy negatively predicted workplace stress in the present study. This 
finding is in line with findings of previous studies (Dijk, 2009; Prahara & Indriani, 2019). 
Employees who are confident in executing the course of action to manage a wide range of 
work situations may experience less workplace stress. 

Interestingly, workplace incivility did not predict OCB significantly in the present 
study. This finding is contradictory to previous research findings. Workplace incivility had 
significant indirect effects on OCB mediated through burnout (Liu et al., 2019) among 
employees from different types of industries. The findings related to workplace incivility and 
OCB in this present study could be attributed to the professional context of the participants 
who are from the IT industry. We hypothesized that workplace incivility would negatively 
predict OCB since those subjected to workplace incivility may try to give it back to others by 
not engaging in OCB. However, the present study's finding related to workplace incivility 
shows that it did not predict OCB. It is possible that in the IT industry, the employees who 
experience workplace incivility do not respond to it by engaging in incivil behavior avoiding 
OCB but may be responding to it in different ways. It is also possible that the relationship 
between workplace incivility and OCB is not a straightforward one; rather, it may be mediated 
by several potential factors like work engagement (Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018). 

All internal factors are chosen in the present study, John Henryism (JH) and work self-
efficacy significantly positively predicted OCB, while probabilistic orientation (PO) 
negatively predicted OCB. A negative relationship is shared between stress and OCB (Soo & 
Ali, 2017). Hence, individuals with higher active coping may adapt well and engage in OCB. 
Previous studies have also found self-efficacy positively influenced OCB (Anfajaya & 
Rahayu, 2020; Pratiwi & Nawangsari, 2021), and those engaging in approach coping 
demonstrate higher levels of OCB (Lilly & Virick, 2013). Self-efficacy has a positive effect 
on employee engagement, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, all of which can, 
in turn, positively influence OCB (Na-Nan et al., 2021). 

In the present study, it was hypothesized that those high on PO would also report higher 
levels of OCB. However, it is intriguing to note that we found a negative relationship between 
PO and OCB. PO reflects a neutral locus of control (Narayanan et al., 1984), and the factors 
of PO may be more relevant to an individual coping than interpersonal relationships. Further 
studies may be needed to understand the dynamics involved in the relationship between PO 
and OCB. 



Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 59 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

There was no significant difference between males and females on the clients' incivility 
they reported. The study is on IT employees, where gender may not play a prominent role 
compared to other industries. It is plausible that clients' behavior towards employees in the 
IT sector may depend more upon the competency and work efficiency of the individual, with 
gender playing a minimal role. No gender difference is observed on JH and PO in the present 
study. It indicates that irrespective of gender, expending high levels of effort to cope with the 
stressors and accumulating physiological costs is the same for all employees. However, a 
study has found that gender moderated the relationship between behavioral disposition of JH 
and blood pressure (Dressler et al., 1998), and this contradicts the finding of the present study. 
Further research is required to understand how gender influences JH. PO reflects matured 
personality and a worldview that enables individuals to understand the big picture instead of 
getting lost in minute details. It reflects an outlook that helps individuals perceive all 
outcomes with equanimity. In this study, there is no gender difference in PO, both genders 
included in the study were given to PO at similar levels. 

This study has no gender difference in workplace stress and work self-efficacy. It 
indicates that whatever be the stressor, the stress experienced by individuals depends on how 
they perceive the event and not on the gender of the person. Certain studies (Geller & Hobfoll, 
1994) have reported that women and men experience similar levels of work stress. In contrast, 
some studies have found that women experience higher levels of work stress than men 
(Antoniou et al., 2006; Michael et al., 2009), while others report that men experience higher 
levels of stress than women (Loosemore & Waters, 2004; Rivera-Torres et al., 2013). 
However, the present study's findings did not show any gender difference in workplace stress. 
As the present study participants were from the IT industry, where mental competence matters 
more than physical competence, gender may not have a significant role in workplace stress. 
The same factor, i.e., the nature of work in the IT industry, may be used to explain the lack 
of gender difference in work self-efficacy.  

It was also found from the present study that there is no gender difference in OCB. This 
finding implies that OCB depends on each individual's voluntary commitment towards an 
organization and is not predicted by gender. Previous studies have shown that altruism and 
civic virtue lead to work self-efficacy, ultimately leading to engagement in OCB (Shahidi et 
al., 2015), and perception of organizational justice also leads to OCB (Moorman, 1991). In 
addition, studies have indicated that organizational involvement, task orientation, and 
altruistic behavior are contributors to OCB (Turnipseed, 1996), and resilient individuals also 
show responsibility and ownership, which predicts OCB (Paul et al., 2016). Psychological 
factors rather than gender appear to influence OCB.  

With regard to resilience, the present study found no significant gender difference. It 
may indicate that despite any gender, people can bounce back from a threatening or stressful 
situation. This finding is supported by other studies (Bezek, 2010). However, a few studies 
have identified that women reported lower resilience than men (Erdogan et al., 2015; Hirani 
et al., 2016). It is interesting to note that while men scored higher on resilience than women, 
the association was not significant when trauma type was controlled (Portnoy et al., 2018). 

Though the present study has some significant findings, the study also has a few 
limitations that need to be duly acknowledged. First is the use of self-report measures for 
collecting data. There is a possibility for social desirability bias in the study, which cannot be 
ruled out entirely. Second, as it is an online survey, participants may try to provide answers 
to present themselves favorably. They may also feel bored or exhausted while doing the 
survey online on their own. Also, a qualitative study can provide better insight as it can 
provide more elaborated information to describe complex matters. 

In practical terms, the study provides a sense of urgency for an empirical investigation 
of workplace incivility. It also highlights the importance of gender as a factor in 
organizational behavior-related studies. From the study, organizations can understand the 
importance of applying suitable OD interventions to create an effective work environment 



60   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

and nurture positive personality characteristics of the employees. If the management exhibits 
fair interpersonal treatment, their employees will be committed to the organization's goals, 
which will lead them to display positive employee actions. Management needs to epitomize 
the behaviors they want their employees to take on. Higher active coping (JH) and work self-
efficacy of the employees should be boosted by offering professional development 
opportunities and self-management training, which would help them cope effectively with 
situations that cause stress. However, more studies are required to understand the relationship 
dynamics between PO and OCB. 

Conclusion 

Findings of the present study indicate that females are more vulnerable to workplace incivility 
than males. Females specifically faced higher supervisor and coworker incivility than males. 
Therefore, it is important to address these issues efficiently and empower women to ensure 
the sustainable development of society and remove gender inequality. However, workplace 
incivility did not predict OCB significantly. John Henryism and work self-efficacy positively 
predict OCB, while probabilistic orientation negatively predicts OCB.  
 
 

References 
 

Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regulation as a mediator between 

interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational 

Psychology, 22(6), 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.698057 

American Institute of Stress. (1998). Workplace Stress Survey. https://www.stress.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/08/Workplace-Stress-Survey.pdf 

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for Tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in 

the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/259136 

Anfajaya, M. A., & Rahayu, A. (2020). The role of self-efficacy in organizational citizenship 

behavior. Proceedings of the 5th ASEAN Conference on Psychology, Counselling, and 

Humanities, 395, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200120.024 

Angner, E., Hullett, S., & Allison, J. J. (2011). "I’ll die with the hammer in my hand”: John 

Henryism as a predictor of happiness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 357–

366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.01.002 

Annalakshmi, N. (2004). Intervention for cancer patients through integral psychotherapy. In 

K. Joshi & M. Cornelisen (Eds.), History of science, philosophy and culture in Indian 

civilization (Vol. XI, pp. 444–460). Munshiram publishers. 

Annalakshmi, N. (2009). Bharathiar University Resilience Scale. In P. Harish & W. Ajay 

(Eds). Research methodology tools and techniques (pp. 105–121). Sree Publishers. 

Annalakshmi, N. (2020). Ego-resiliency, probabilistic orientation, and self-efficacy. In S. 

Subramanian., S. J. M. Raj., A, Velayudhan., & N. Annalakshmi (Eds.). The recent 

trends in psychology (pp. 17–31). Garuda Publisher. 

Annalakshmi, N. (2021). Probabilistic orientation and 'sailing through’ therapy. Indian 

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(2), 100–111. 

Antoniou, A., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A. (2006). Gender and age differences in 

occupational stress and professional burnout between primary and high‐school teachers 

in Greece. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 682–690. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690213 

Avallone, F., Pepe, S., Porcelli, R., & Farnese, M. L. (2007). Autoefficacia percepita nella 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359432X.2012.698057
https://www.stress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Workplace-Stress-Survey.pdf
https://www.stress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Workplace-Stress-Survey.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/259136?origin=crossref
https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/acpch-19/125932567
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167487011000122?via%3Dihub
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02683940610690213/full/html


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 61 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

ricerca del lavoro: scale di misura. Isfol, Bisogni, valori e autoefficacia nella scelta del 

lavoro. Roma: ISFOL, 133-142. 

Badran, M. A., & Kafafy, J. H. (2008). The effect of job redesign on job satisfaction, 

resilience, commitment, and flexibility: The case of an Egyptian public sector bank. 

International Journal of Business Research, 8(3), 27–41. 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. 

Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response 

to workplace incivility: A diary study. Work and Stress, 28(2), 124–142. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.898712 

Beauregard, T. A. (2012). Perfectionism, self‐efficacy and OCB: The moderating role of 

gender. Personnel Review, 41(5), 590–608. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211249120 

Bezek, E. (2010). Gender differences in resilience in the emerging adulthood population. 

[Master Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology]. New York. 

Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. 

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595–614. 

https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905x26822 

Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: 

Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22(3), 

754–771. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540 

Carlton, B. S., Goebert, D. A., Miyamoto, R. H., Andrade, N. N., Hishinuma, E. S., Makini, 

G. K., Yuen, N. Y., Bell, C. K., McCubbin, L. D., Else, ’. R., & Nishimura, S. T. (2006). 

Resilience, family adversity and wellbeing among Hawaiian and Non-Hawaiian 

adolescents. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52(4), 291–308. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764006065136 

Caverley, N. (2005). Civil service resilience and coping. International Journal of Public 

Sector Management, 18(5), 410–413. 

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year 

college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55 

Chen, G., Goddard, T. G., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Examination of the relationships among 

general and work-specific self-evaluations, work-related control beliefs, and job 

attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(3), 349–370. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00175.x 

Clay, R. (2013). That’s just rude. American Psychological Association, 44(10), 34. 

Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). 

Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. 

Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835 

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the 

workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 

64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 

D’Cruz, P., & Rayner, C. (2012). Bullying in the Indian workplace: A study of the ITES-

BPO sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(4), 597–619. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x12452672 

Dijk, M. (2009, September). Employee self-efficacy and job stress during organizational 

change: The mediating effect of risk perception. [Master Thesis, University of Twente]. 

Utrecht.]. https://essay.utwente.nl/60540/1/MSc_Dijk,_M._van.pdf 

Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678373.2014.898712
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00483481211249120/full/html
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/096317905X26822
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764006065136
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0663.93.1.55
https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00175.x
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206311418835
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1076-8998.6.1.64
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143831X12452672
https://essay.utwente.nl/60540/1/MSc_Dijk,_M._van.pdf


62   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in 

the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 683–692. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.683 

Dressler, W. W., Bindon, J. R., & Neggers, Y. H. (1998). John Henryism, gender, and arterial 

blood pressure in an African American community. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(5), 

620–624. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199809000-00019 

El-Azzab, S. E. H. I., Hassan, I., & Alam, M. (2019). Work related stress, burnout and self-

efficacy among psychiatric nurses. International Journal of Novel Research in 

Healthcare and Nursing, 62(2), 729–744. 

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33523.48161 

Erdogan, E., Ozdogan, O., & Erdogan, M. (2015). University students’ resilience level: The 

effect of gender and faculty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1262–

1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.047 

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2011). The deviant citizen: 

Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and 

organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational 

Psychology, 85(1), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x 

Gabriel, A. S., Butts, M. M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R. L., & Sliter, M. T. (2018). Further 

understanding incivility in the workplace: The effects of gender, agency, and 

Communion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 362–382. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000289 

Geller, P. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1994). Gender differences in job stress, tedium, and social 

support in the workplace. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(4), 555–

572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594114004 

Grau, R., Salanova, M., & Peiró, J. (2000). Moderator effects of self-efficacy on 

occupational stress. Apuntes de Psicología, 18(1), 57–75. 

Greitemeyer, T., & Rudolph, U. (2003). Help giving and aggression from an attributional 

perspective: Why and when we help or retaliate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 

33(5), 1069–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01939.x 

Hirani, S., Lasiuk, G., & Hegadoren, K. (2016). The intersection of gender and resilience. 

Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 23(6–7), 455–467. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12313 

Hu, L., & Liu, Y. (2017). Abuse for status: A social dominance perspective of abusive 

supervision. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 328–337. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.06.002 

Hurst, J., Leberman, S., & Edwards, M. (2017). The career impacts of women managing 

women. Australian Journal of Management, 43(1), 132–151. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896217701981 

James, S. A. (1994). John Henryism and the health of African-Americans. Culture, Medicine 

and Psychiatry, 18(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01379448 

James, S. A., Hartnett, S. A., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (1983). John Henryism and blood pressure 

differences among Black men. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(3), 259–278. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01315113 

Jawahar, I., & Schreurs, B. (2018). Supervisor incivility and how it affects subordinates’ 

performance: A matter of trust. Personnel Review, 47(3), 709–726. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2017-0022 

Jiménez, P., Dunkl, A., & Peißl, S. (2015). Workplace incivility and its effects on value 

congruence, recovery-stress-state and the intention to quit. Psychology, 06(14), 1930–

1939. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.614190 

https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.83.5.683
https://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1998/09000/John_Henryism,_Gender,_and_Arterial_Blood_Pressure.19.aspx
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335741537_Work_Related_Stress_Burnout_and_Self-efficacy_among_Psychiatric_Nurses?channel=doi&linkId=5d78db6a299bf1cb80986f00&showFulltext=true
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815023071?via%3Dihub
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000289
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265407594114004
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01939.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpm.12313
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482216300316?via%3Dihub
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0312896217701981
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01379448
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01315113
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PR-01-2017-0022/full/html
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=61499


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 63 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2018). The effects of experienced customer incivility on employees’ 

behavior toward customers and coworkers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 

43(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348018764583 

Kramer, N. M., Johnson, N. L., & Johnson, D. M. (2015). Is John Henryism a resilience 

factor in women experiencing intimate partner violence? Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 

28(6), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.1000879 

Lilly, J. D., & Virick, M. (2013). Coping mechanisms as antecedents of justice and 

organization citizenship behaviors: A multi-focal perspective of the social exchange 

relationship. Current Psychology, 32(2), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-

9172-7 

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface 

and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 

90(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483 

Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact 

on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95–107. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95 

Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does 

family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95–111. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021726 

Liu, C.-E., Chen, Y., He, W., & Huang, J. (2019). Supervisor incivility and millennial 

employee creativity: A moderated mediation model. Social Behavior and Personality: 

An International Journal, 47(9), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8365 

Loosemore, M., & Waters, T. (2004). Gender differences in occupational stress among 

professionals in the construction industry. Journal of Management in Engineering, 

20(3), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597x(2004)20:3(126) 

Mao, C., Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Sun, J. (2019). Incivility and employee 

performance, citizenship, and counterproductive behaviors: Implications of the social 

context. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(2), 213–227. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000108 

Masten, A. S. (2013). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child 

Development, 85(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12205 

Michael, G., Anastasios, S., Helen, K., Catherine, K., & Christine, K. (2009). Gender 

differences in experiencing occupational stress: The role of age, education, and marital 

status. Stress and Health, 25(5), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1248 

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational 

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal 

of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845 

Mujahid, M. S., James, S. A., Kaplan, G. A., & Salonen, J. T. (2017). Socioeconomic 

position, John Henryism, and incidence of acute myocardial infarction in Finnish men. 

Social Science & Medicine, 173, 54–62. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.034 

Na-Nan, K., Kanthong, S., & Joungtrakul, J. (2021). An empirical study on the model of 

self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior transmitted through employee 

engagement, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the Thai automobile 

parts manufacturing industry. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and 

Complexity, 7(3), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030170 

Narayanan, S. (1977). Probabilistic orientation and social change. Paper presented at the 

Seminar on Rural Development, Department of Social Work, Sri Ramakrishna 

Mission Vidyalaya Arts College, Coimbatore. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1096348018764583
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10615806.2014.1000879
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-013-9172-7
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-013-9172-7
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.90.3.483
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.93.1.95
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0021726
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2019/00000047/00000009/art00002;jsessionid=b37s63l6q373b.x-ic-live-03
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%290742-597X%282004%2920%3A3%28126%29
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Focp0000108
https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12205
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.1248
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.76.6.845
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953616306530?via%3Dihub
https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/7/3/170


64   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

 

Narayanan, S., Venkatapathy, R., & Govindarasu, S. (1984). Locus of Control and 

Probabilistic Orientation. Psychological Studies, 29(1), 68–70. 

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior - The good soldier syndrome (1st 

ed.). Lexington Books. 

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizen ship behavior. In B. 

M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 43–72). 

CT: JAI Press. 

Paul, H., Bamel, U. K., & Garg, P. (2016). Employee resilience and OCB: Mediating effects 

of organizational commitment. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 41(4), 308–

324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090916672765 

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking 

workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–137. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(00)00019-x 

Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your 

business and what to do about it. Penguin Books Ltd. 

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning 

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on 

task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181–

1197. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919 

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces 

onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and 

Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 29–44. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003 

Portnoy, G. A., Relyea, M. R., Decker, S., Shamaskin‐Garroway, A., Driscoll, M., Brandt, 

C. A., & Haskell, S. G. (2018). Understanding gender differences in resilience among 

veterans: Trauma history and social ecology. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 31(6), 845–

855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22341 

Prahara, S. A., & Indriani, N. (2019). Employees: Occupational self-efficacy and work 

stress. Journal of Psychology and Instruction, 3(3), 91–96. 

Pratiwi, L. A., & Nawangsari, L. C. (2021). Organizational citizenship behavior while 

mediating self-efficacy, servant leadership and organization culture on employee 

performance. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(1), 225–

231. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2021.6.1.713 

Priya, D. (1997). A study of mental health among college students in relation to I-E locus of 

control and probabilistic orientation [Master thesis, Bharathiar University]. 

Coimbatore. 

Reich, T. C., & .Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036464 

Reio, T. G., J., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about workplace engagement: Does 

supervisor and coworker incivility really matter? Advances in Developing Human 

Resources, 13(4), 462–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311430784 

Rhee, S. Y., Hur, W. M., & Kim, M. (2017). The relationship of coworker incivility to job 

performance and the moderating role of self-efficacy and compassion at work: The Job 

Demands-Resources (JD-R) approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 

711–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9469-2 

Rivera-Torres, P., Araque-Padilla, R. A., & Montero-Simó, M. J. (2013). Job stress across 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0256090916672765
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009026160000019X?via%3Dihub
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-0663.82.1.33
https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597809000041?via%3Dihub
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jts.22341
https://ejbmr.org/index.php/ejbmr/article/view/713
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0036464
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1523422311430784
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-016-9469-2


Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal 65 

 

      Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees…)   

gender: The importance of emotional and intellectual demands and social support in 

women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(1), 

375–389. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10010375 

Royle, M. T., Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The 

interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship 

behavior and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13(1), 53–71. 

Sari, A. D. K., & Wahyuni, S. (2019). Effect of employee resilience against OCB: The role 

of organizational commitment mediation. International Journal of Education and 

Social Science Research, 2(6), 27–38. 

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the 

literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–

S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976 

Shabir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., & Javed, M. (2014). The contribution of workplace 

incivility and psychological capital toward job stress. International Journal of Human 

Resource Studies, 4(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i2.5786 

Shahidi, N., Shamsnia, S. A., & Baezat, S. (2015). Studying the relationship between self-

efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior (case study: Islamic Azad University 

– Zone 1). International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 9(9), 1499–

1503. 

Sliter, M., Jex, S., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010). How rude! Emotional labor as a 

mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational 

Health Psychology, 15(4), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020723 

Smith, A. E., Hassan, S., Hatmaker, D. M., DeHart-Davis, L., & Humphrey, N. (2021). 

Gender, race, and experiences of workplace incivility in public organizations. Review 

of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 674–699. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20927760 

Soo, H. S., & Ali, H. (2017). Can stressed employees perform organizational citizenship 

behavior? Journal of Advanced Management Science, 5(2), 121–126. 

https://doi.org/10.18178/joams.5.2.121-126 

Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2011). Linking workplace incivility to 

citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and 

conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 878–893. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.773 

Tiềt, Q. Q., & Huizinga, D. (2002). Dimensions of the construct of resilience and adaptation 

among inner-city youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(3), 260–276. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558402173003 

Torkelson, E., Holm, K., Bäckström, M., & Schad, E. (2016). Factors contributing to the 

perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and 

experiencing incivility from others. Work and Stress, 30(2), 115–131. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524 

Turnipseed, D. (1996). Organization citizenship behaviour: An examination of the influence 

of the workplace. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(2), 42–47. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739610111222 

Usha, P. G. (2005). Probabilistic orientation and stress tolerance. [Master dissertation, 

Bharathiar University]. Coimbatore. 

Van Loon, A. J. M., Tijhuis, M., Surtees, P. G., & Ormel, J. (2001). Personality and coping: 

Their relationship with lifestyle risk factors for cancer. Personality and Individual 

Differences, 31(4), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00158-6 

Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the incivility 

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/1/375
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.1976
https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijhrs/article/view/5786
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0020723
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0734371X20927760
http://www.joams.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=63&id=355
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.773
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0743558402173003
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01437739610111222/full/html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886900001586?via%3Dihub


66   

               ISSN 2598-6368 (online) / ISSN 1693-7236 (print) 
  

Annalakshmi et al. (The consequence of workplace incivility among IT employees: …) 

from customers scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(3), 310–326. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032753 

Yeung, A., & Griffin, B. (2008). Workplace incivility: Does matter in Asia? People & 

Strategy, 31(3), 14–19. 

Young, K. A., Hassan, S., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2021). Towards understanding workplace 

incivility: gender, ethical leadership and personal control. Public Management Review, 

23(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1665701 

Zaki, R. A. (2016). Job stress and self- efficacy among psychiatric nursing working in mental 

health hospitals at Cairo , Egypt. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(20), 103–113. 

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ 

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068 

Zhang, S., Ma, C., Meng, D., Shi, Y., Xie, F., Wang, J., Dong, X., Liu, J., Cang, S., & Sun, 

T. (2018). Impact of workplace incivility in hospitals on the work ability, career 

expectations and job performance of Chinese nurses: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ 

Open, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021874 
  
 

 

 

  

https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0032753
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2019.1665701
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.6.1068
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/12/e021874

