The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-0705.htm
Co-worker incivility and employee Co-workerincivility:
engagement among Ghanaian bank a stressor of
employees
workers: does emotional
intelligence matter?
Kwesi Amponsah-Tawiah Received 13 March 2022
Department of Organisation and Human Resource Management, Business School, Revised 9 May 202229 August 2022
University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana 3 November 2022
Accepted 14 November 2022
Nana Kojo Ayimadu Baafi
Business School Organisation and Human Resource Management,
University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana, and
Jusice Mensah
Department of Organisation and Human Resource Management, Business School,
University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to ascertain themechanism throughwhich an employee engages at the
workplace when faced with an uncivil act.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design to sample 482
participants drawn from commercial banks operating in Ghana. The population of the study (employees
working in banks in Ghana) was selected owing to the recent reforms in the sector coupled with the emerging
fear of loss of jobs as a result of the corona virus pandemic and the potential impact on employeework attitudes.
Participants were however selected conveniently and employees who were available and willing to participate
given questionnaires to complete.
Findings –Co-worker incivility significantly and negatively predicted employee engagement, while emotional
intelligence (EI) predicted employee engagement positively. Furthermore, EI served as a mediator between
co-worker incivility and engagement.
Research limitations/implications – Despite these encouraging findings, the mechanism underlying these
effects could not be identified. Therefore, future studies can establish the underlying mechanisms of these effects
by usingqualitative studies or themixed-method. Future studies can also explore other personal resources such as
psychological capital or personality traits in mitigating the negative effects of workplace incivility.
Practical implications –Given the fact that incivility has a significant negative influence on employees within
the organisation, there is the need for government and policy makers to enact an inclusive policy that deals with
employeemistreatments andmost especially lowkeymistreatment. This could be done through the promulgation
of a national policy onpsychosocial riskmanagement (PRIMA) asmost of the uncivil acts in organisations present
aspsychosocial risk factors. Secondly, at the organisational level there is the need to consider EI of employeesmost
especially when recruiting employees so as to avoid squared pegs being placed in round holes.
Originality/value –This research found out that for an employee to engage or not when faced with an uncivil
act, one’s EI has to play a role. The appraisal theory was used to provide a sufficient grounds in exploring the
role of EI in the evaluations and determination of occurrences in organisations as intentional or unintentional,
positive or negative and hence the resultant work outcomes.
Keywords Emotional intelligence, Incivility, Engagement, Appraisal theory
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The rampant display of uncivil behaviours at the workplace is noted to be one of the most African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies
common disruptive behaviours in organisations today (Schilpzand et al., 2016a, b). Office © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-0705
deviance continues to be an area of interest for many researchers and as a result, has been DOI 10.1108/AJEMS-03-2022-0096
AJEMS studied from different viewpoints; serving as a dependent variable to some and a causal
variable to others (Bibi and Karim, 2013; Schilpzand et al., 2016a, b). Uncivil behaviours at the
workplace include acts of insolence, discrimination, verbal assaults amongst otherswhich are
perpetrated against employees by supervisors, customers and co-workers (Adams and
Webster, 2013; Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013; Torkelson et al., 2016). These are usual occurrence in
organisations but are normally kept under wraps only to be manifested later in the attitudes
of employees towards work. Co-worker discourteousness includes aberrant behaviours
which do not affect individuals directly but normally after careful thoughts or an emotional
process. Some of these behaviours includes; not saying “please” or “thank you”, discounting
others within an organisational space or flying one’s voice (Cho et al., 2016). Co-worker
incivility has been found to relate negatively with various organisational outcomes; employee
job performance and work engagement (Sakurai and Jex, 2012; Wang and Chen, 2020);
commitment and job satisfaction (Porath and Pearson, 2010).
Workplace incivility, whichever form it may take has negative consequential effect on
organisational outcomes. This has indeed prompted a number of studies in the area including the
banking industry (Sliter et al., 2012; Porath and Pearson, 2013; Han et al., 2016; Alola et al., 2019).
However, very few of these studies isolated co-worker incivility as a variable of interest as well as
incivility amongst employeeswithin several banks at a particular time.Also, studies onworkplace
incivility are largely skewed to thewesternworldwithvery little studies focussingonAfricawhere
unemployment is rife allowing for the perpetration of uncivil behaviours against employees.
In Ghana, wild claims of incivility abound albeit anecdotally with little empirical data to
buttress the claims and to provide a solution (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). Thus the problem of
workplace incivility continues to linger. The recent banking reforms in Ghana and its
resultant collapse and consolidation of several banks has brought in its wake heightened
suspicion of bank operations putting undue pressure on bank workers to stay relevant and
keep their jobs (Boateng, 2020). The stress emanating from these pressures may induce
uncivil behaviours which may have an impact on employees’ engagement and performance
(Yeboah-Kordee et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2021). Hence, there is the need to focus on workers in
the banking industry and how uncivil behaviours affect their engagement at the workplace.
Existing studies on incivility have focussed largely on direct effects of the construct on
organisational outcomes including engagement. However, there is dearth in the studies that
examine the indirect route through which the relationship between incivility and other
organisational outcomes can also be explained (Jawahar and Schreurs, 2017; Wang et al.,
2020). An exploration of potential mediators that impact the relationship would not be out of
place (Schilpzand et al., 2016a, b).
Emotional intelligence (EI); the art of managing ones’ emotions and responding positively to
the emotions of others has been found to be an important construct in maintaining harmony
among individuals even in the face of apparent differences. According toWong and Law (2002)
it is an interrelated skill controlled by an individual to manage emotions. EI serves as a great
stimulus for employee engagement. The construct has been found to relate positively with
various organisational outcomes (Taylor and Kluemper, 2012; Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013; Bailey
et al., 2017; Loh andLoi, 2018;Alola et al., 2019;Wang et al., 2020). However, the construct is yet to
be explored as a medium in explaining the relationship between workplace incivility and
organisational outcomes including employee engagement. Engagement as defined by Schaufeli
et al. (2002) is a point of beingmotivated positively and comprises of one’s vigour, dedication and
absorption. Schaufeli simplifies vigour as the physical strength of the human body or mental
capacity an individual use in order to complete a given task; dedication refers to an employees’
emotional state thus his or her feelings of happiness and a reason to challenge a task given; and
absorption explains one’s ability to concentrate and apportion time for a particular assignment
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Salanova et al., 2005). Dedication is revealed to be the
characteristic that influences job satisfaction the most because of its nous of happiness,
motivation and satisfaction in achieving a target (Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009; Schaufeli et al., Co-worker
2009). Hence, for an employee to engage, he or she has to bepsychologically available. That is, an incivility:
employee requires the ability to possess physical and emotional resources in order to engage a stressor of
(Schaufeli et al., 2002).
employees
Theoretical development
Appraisal theory
The appraisal theory is an evaluative theory which proposes that, when an individual comes
in contact with a stressor (uncivil acts), a cognitive-emotional (EI) process come alive to assess
the stressor (Biggs et al., 2017). Situations encountered are usually appraised in order to have
the ability to tell how hurtful, inspiring, challenging or detrimental the circumstance is to the
target which leads to an emotional response and eventually directs individual behaviour
(Engagement) (Porath and Pearson, 2012). The ambiguities that characterise uncivil acts are
cleared through the use of attributions (Biggs et al., 2017). The attributes are used to appraise
and explain the cause events and hence determine appropriate response. When employee
perceives that the perpetrator has intention of causing harm, that is when they feel hurt,
gloomy and sad. These feelings of hurt among others are what destroy working relationships
within the organisations, erupts relational distance amongst co-workers and unforgiveness
(Struthers et al., 2010). However, when an appraisal of an uncivil act is credited to
unintentionality of the instigator, one is likely to make meaning of the situation and react
accordingly (Miller, 2001). The appraisal theory therefore provides sufficient grounds in
exploring the role of EI in the evaluations and determination of occurrences in organisations
as intentional or unintentional, positive or negative and hence the resultant work outcomes.
Incivility and employees’ engagement
Co-worker incivility is an impolite behaviour instigated by a colleague at work against other
employees which has the tendency to affect engagements of employees (Pearson et al., 2001).
Bibi and Karim (2013) found out that there was a positive relationship between incivility and
employee withdrawal behaviours in the tertiary sector. Reio and Sanders-Reio (2011) found
out that co-worker incivility negatively predicted employee’s engagement.
Hur et al. (2015) suggested that co-worker incivility had no direct impact on employee
performance but rather, it had to affect the emotions of an individual before it could affect how
an employee performs within the job context. According to Wang and Chen (2020) co-worker
incivility reduced work engagement and job performance greatly in the hospitality industry.
Loi et al. (2021) conducted a study on uncivil workplace behaviours amongst managers and
observed that, the higher the EI the lower the exhibition of uncivil workplace behaviours.
HI. Co-worker incivility will influence employee work engagement negatively and
significantly
Emotional intelligence and employee engagement
Emotional intellect is a major skill needed to cope with misunderstandings, inability to identify
and express one’s feelings amongst others (Clarke, 2010; Boyatzis, 2018). Individuals high on EI
have a high tendency to control their feelings and also guide emotions in a positive way whilst
those low on EI tend to be very quick in responding to a negative stimulus. Extant research
suggests that, EI manages the effect of employee emotional discord (King, 2020) and also
believed to have some influence on employees’ engagement (Brunetto et al., 2012).
According to Arora et al. (2012) study, emotional quotient had a positive influence on
employees’ engagement. A similar study by Lui et al. (2017) in the hotel industry indicated
that EI had a positive influence on engagement but this observation did not affect non-
AJEMS managers. Tagoe and Quarshie (2017) found that EI positively correlated with the
satisfaction of nurses within these government hospitals in Ghana. According to Swancott
and Davis (2022) who conducted a study on EI, employee engagement and job satisfaction
found out that emotional capabilities did not have a significant impact on employee work
engagement and satisfaction.
H2. EI will positively predict employees work engagement
Co-worker incivility, emotional intelligence and employee engagement
The present study proposes a theoretical foundation for EI as a mediator between incivility and
employee engagement. The appraisal theory elaborates that, for any employee to engage after
encountering any situation, it will have to be appraised by their emotional intellect (Biggs et al.,
2017). That is to say that when an individual faces an uncivil act, ones’ emotional intellect will
have to assess the act before one responses. Hence, if the act is assessed to be normal, the
individual is likely to engage but if the act is evaluated as demeaning, then onewill disengage or
engage less. In here, the inability or capacity to understand ones’ emotion and that of others
affects how employees will behave within the organisation (Brunetto et al., 2012).
Also, Co-workers are believed to help each other in executing daily activities within the
workplace butwhen an employee treats others impolitely, there is a break inworkplace norm for
respect (Sliter et al., 2012). This could lead to an individual becoming emotionally drained and as
a result can affect one’s ability in completing a task. Uncivil behaviours among co-workers has
been associated with many undesirable outcomes such as increased stress (Leiter, 2013) and
withdrawal behaviours (Lim andCortina, 2005; Arasli et al., 2018). According to Irum et al. (2020)
co-worker uncivil behaviour is a stressor and it can draw off emotive and intellectual resources
which eventually affects how an individual response to an uncivil event.
H3. EI will potentially mediate co-worker incivility and employee engagement.
Methodology
The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design to sample 482 participants drawn from
commercial banks operating inGhana. The population of the study (Employeesworking inBanks
in Ghana) was selected owing to the recent reforms in the sector coupledwith the emerging fear of
loss of jobs as a result of the corona virus pandemic and the potential impact on employee work
attitudes. Participants were however selected conveniently after their organisations had granted
access and employees who were available and willing to participate given questionnaires to
complete. The sample comprised of 273 (56.6%) males and 209 (43.4%) females.
Measurement analysis
Co-worker incivilitywasmeasured using Sliter et al.’s (2012) four item incivility scale. The four
items have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of original and Pilot (α 5 0.89, α 5 0.88). An
Example of the items; “[How often do co-workers ignore or exclude you while at work]”.
EI was measured using Wong and Law’s (2002) emotional intelligence scale (WLEIS).
This scale is made up of 16 items which has been rigorously tested and validated in many
industries and cultures (Libbrecht et al., 2014). This scale is a multi-dimensional scale
which assesses four other skills in relations to one’s emotions. These include; self-
emotional appraisal (4 items), others emotional appraisal (4 items), use of emotions
(4 items) and regulation of emotions (4 items). The 16 items measure a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of original and pilot (α 5 0.92, α 5 0.71). Participants indicated the extent to
which they agree to each statement on a 5 point Likert scale with strongly disagree (1) and
strongly agree (5). Examples of items on the scale include; I really understand what I feel; Co-worker
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. incivility:
The Utrecht work engagement scale which was developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) a stressor of
was used to measure employee engagement at the workplace. Examples of the item on the scale
include: at work, I feel bursting with energy and I am immersed in my work. The 9 items have a employees
Cronbach’s alpha of original andpilot (α5 0.95,α5 0.72). Participantswere required to respond
using a five point Likert scale which ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Data analyses/test of hypotheses. The structural equation model was employed as the
analytical tool to test for the hypotheses of the study. This was done after an initial screening
of data indicated the data met all conditions for the use of the analytical tool (See Table 1).
In Table 2, it can be observed that the data had no problems with skewness and kurtosis.
All the variables fell within the acceptable range of±1. The means and standard deviation of
the study variables were; incivility 8.21 (± 3.25), EI 63 (± 8.68) and engagement 33.88 (± 5.61).
All demographic variables were disregarded from the analyses as possible control because
they did not have any significant effect on the dependent variable used for the study as
acclaimed by Carlson and Wu (2012)
Measurement model
Themeasurement model assessed the relationship between the parcelled items and the study
constructs. This was done in order to find out how good the items predicted the latent
variables (Bryne, 2010).
Profile Variable No. of respondents Percentage (%)
Gender Male 273 56.6
Female 209 43.4
Age(years) Under 21 8 1.7
21–30 188 39.0
31–40 194 40.2
41–50 65 13.5
51–60 13 2.7
Above 61 14 2.9
Education SSCE/WASSCE 12 2.5
Diploma/HND 46 9.5
First degree 258 53.5
Master 143 29.7
Doctorate 5 1.0
Professional Cert 18 3.7
Years in org Less than 1 year 63 13.1
1–3 years 152 31.5
4–7 years 136 28.5
8–10 years 71 14.7
11–13 years 28 5.8
14 and above years 32 6.6
Marital Status Single 219 45.4
Married 243 50.4
Divorced 12 2.5
widowed 3 0.6
separated 5 1.0
Employment type Permanent staff 354 73
Temporary staff 43 8.9 Table 1.
Contract staff 85 17.6 Demographic specifics
Total 482 100 of respondents
AJEMS The fit indices of this research are as follow; comparative fit index (CFI), ratio of Chi-square to
degree of freedom (Chi-square minimum (CMIN)/DF; X2/df), root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR). Although
there are several guidelines to accept a model, this study adopted the guidelines of Hu and
Bentler (1999). According to the results, CMIN/X2/df 5 2.336, SRMR 5 0.052,
RMSEA5 0.053 and Pclose5 0.287 were excellent with CFI being acceptable (See Figure 1).
Validity and reliability
In assessing the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) was used and it is
advised to have a value of at least 0.50 for all latent concepts. Fornell-Larcker criterion was
used to evaluate discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). This criterion compares the shared
variance of constructs within (AVE) to the squared correlation between the latent constructs
(shared variance between constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). It was observed that all the
constructs had AVE values of 0.50 and above which makes it acceptable and suitable.
The highlighted diagonal values indicated the square roots of the AVEswhich represents the
Variable Mean S.D Skewness Kurtosis
Incivility 8.21 3.25 0.83 0.38
Table 2. Emotional intelligence 63 8.68 
1.08 2.48
Normality test Engagement 33.88 5.61 
0.50 0.25
Figure 1.
Measurement model
discriminatory validity. This indicates that all the variables were significantly greater than Co-worker
any of the squared correlation coefficients involving the constructs. incivility:
The internal reliability of this study was evaluated using the composite reliability (CR). a stressor of
Hair et al. (2017) specified that in order to establish consistency using CR, the values need to be
0.70 or above. The CR of all the variableswas greater than 0.70whichmakes it acceptable (See employees
Table 3). To conclude, the measurement model has adequate convergent validity, reliability
and discriminant validity.
Structural/hypothesised model
Structural model indices
Results from the structural model test (see Figure 2) showed excellent fit indices from the study
data, with CMIN/DF5 2.458, SRMR5 0.052, RMSEA5 0.055,CFI5 0.964 andPClose5 0.166.
Hypotheses testing
The first hypothesis predicted that co-worker incivility will influence employee engagement
negatively and significant. From the path analysis (See Table 4), it was observed that
incivility influenced employee engagement negatively and was also significant (β5
0.233,
t 5 
5.254, p 5 0.00). Hence, hypothesis 1 was confirmed.
The second hypothesis examined EI as a predictor of employee engagement. The results
from the path analysis (See Table 4) showed that EIwas significantly and positively related to
employee engagement (β5 0.458, t5 11.00, p5 0.00). Thus, hypothesis 2was also confirmed.
The third hypothesis tested the mediating role of EI in the relationship between incivility
and employee engagement. The results (See Table 4) showed that EI mediated the
relationship between co-worker incivility and employee engagement (β 5 
0.141, p5 0.00).
Therefore, the third hypothesis was accepted.
Discussion
Evidence from the study points to the importance of civil relationships at the workplace and its
implication on employee outcomes; on this employee engagement. It is evident from the findings
that employees who perceived/experienced uncivil acts of hostility, aggression, discrimination,
disrespect among others from co-workers are more likely to disengage from work by way of
expressing less enthusiasm, vigour and initiative towards work. This finding aligns with Bibi
and Karim (2013), Wang and Chen (2020) and Porath and Pearson (2010) all of which pointed
that employees who experienced discourteous acts from colleagues engaged less and to a large
extent begun to withdraw from organisational activities such as not coming to work early,
sabotaging colleagues particularly those who initiated the uncivil acts. Engagement thrives
more in a less conflictedwork environmentwhere there ismutual trust and consideration among
employees (Markos and Sridevi, 2010). Indeed, the social climate at the workplace is a key
determinant of the level of engagement among employees. Thus management of organisations,
Variable CR AVE Incivil Emotion Engagement
Incivil 0.842 0.574 0.757
Emotion 0.892 0.513 0.497 0.716 Table 3.
Engagement 0.863 0.513 
0.307 
0.284 0.716 Assessment of
Note(s): CR- Composite Reliability, AVE- Average Variance Extracted, Incivil- Incivility, Emotion-Emotional reliability and validity
intelligence, Engagement- Employee Engagement (the values highlighted are the square roots of the AVEs) of retained items
AJEMS
Figure 2.
Structural model
indices
Estimate C.R S.E
Model 1 (Direct)
Incivility → Employee Engagement 
2.33*** 
5.254 0.056
Emotional intelligence → Employee Engagement 0.458*** 11.006 0.034
Model 2 (Mediation)
Table 4. Incivility → EI → Employee Engagement 
0.141*** – –
Summary of results Note(s): *** p < 0.001
particularly organisations that house a lot of professionals like the banks ought to enhance their
social climate by enacting policies, practices and systems that engenders we-feeling among
employees and enhances mutual trust and respect amongst all employees.
The banking industry assembles highly skilled professionals who would want to be treated Co-worker
with dignity and respect. Thus, discourteous acts perpetrated by colleagues could lead to “social- incivility:
distancing” among employees and largely affecting their levels of engagement. The recent a stressor of
banking reforms coupledwith the global pandemic (Covid-19) has causedmanypeople their jobs
leavingmany other workers to sit on tenterhooks and livingwith anxiety. This situation has the employees
potential to trigger some uncivil behaviour among colleagues. Considering the effect of co-
worker incivility on employee engagement, it will be important for organisationsparticularly the
banks to activate and reaffirm their workplace social policies to engender trust and create good
interpersonal relationships-catalysts for employee engagement.
EI had a predictive effect on employee engagement with employees high on EI showing
higher levels of engagement compared with their colleagues lower on the construct. Indeed,
individuals higher on EI are believed to have the skill to manage their emotions and respond
positively to the emotions of others. These skills are not different from those needed for
relationship management, which is at the heart of employee engagement. This finding is
consistent with that of Dartey-Baah and Mekpor (2017) who also concluded in their study on
the Ghanaian banking industry that engaged employees were also emotionally intelligent.
The work environment is an emotional environment which consists of emotive beings.
Issues surrounding money or finances are likewise emotive in nature. Thus the banking
industrywhich consists of emotive beingsworking on emotive issues requires personnel with
very high EI to thrive. Self-motivation and social awareness as attributes or elements of EI
have such tenets as achievement orientation and service orientation as key ingredients. Thus
individuals high on EI are more likely to exhibit these tendencies which are reflections of
employee engagement.
The role of EI in explaining the relationship between co-worker incivility and employee
engagement is well established in this study. EI has been found to play a mediating role in the
relationship between co-worker incivility and employee engagement serving as a via-media
through which the relationship is established. Incivility is a predictor of employee engagement
showing a negative predictive effect. However, this relationship is not sacrosanct as it is
determinedby theEI of the person onwhom the uncivil act is beingperpetrated. EI is required to
determine an action by a colleague as uncivil and determine appropriate response. Thus,
employees high on EI have the tenacity to weigh whether behaviour from a colleague is uncivil
or otherwise and adopt appropriate self-regulatory measures which include silence, distancing
and avoidance. For instance, an employee high on EI is organisation-aware and thus place
happenings within the organisation in proper context and remains engaged. Similarly, such an
employee who is self-aware may self-regulate even when he interprets an action from a co-
worker to be uncivil by remaining silent, walking away or keeping his distance, which are all
signs of reduced engagement if not disengagement.
The above explanation is in line with the appraisal theory which postulates that when an
individual comes in contact with a stressor, a cognitive-emotional process come alive or is
revealed to assess the stressor (Biggs et al., 2017). In this study, the cognitive-emotional
process was EI of employees which enabled individuals to put meaning to uncivil behaviours
encountered which eventually led to a specific behaviour.
Furthermore, this finding contrasts with findings from Rousseau et al. (2008), Jelavic et al.
(2021), and Welbourne et al. (2015) which indicated that individuals from collectivist cultures
such as Ghana are more tolerant and resilient to low-intensity discourteous behaviours. This
study’s findings as well as findings from Lim and Lee (2011) show that individuals from
collectivist cultures experience incivility which affects their work outcomes. It is therefore
imperative that individuals and organisations in collectivist cultures bring to the fore issues
relating toworkplace incivility anddeploy effective strategies to dealwith this canker since their
employees are not immune to experiencing workplace incivility and its inimical consequences.
AJEMS Limitations and recommendations for future research
The present results reveal that co-worker incivility has significant negative effects on work
engagement, EI has a strong positive effect on employee engagement and EI mediates the
co-worker incivility and employee engagement relationship. Despite these encouraging findings,
the mechanism underlying these effects could not be identified. Therefore, future studies can
establish the underlying mechanisms of these effects by using qualitative studies or the mixed-
method. Future studies can also explore other personal resources such as psychological capital
or personality traits in mitigating the negative effects of workplace incivility. Furthermore,
future studies should avoid the use of self-assessment of EI since it can be somewhat specious in
nature. Lastly, all the data comes from a single source which is just the employees hence future
studies should look at the characteristics ofmanagers and the engagement of their subordinates.
Conclusions
The quest for resilient and engaged workforce in today’s organisation has heightened not only
because of the global pandemic but also because of the appreciation of the fact that an engaged
employee is a socially involved, physically committed, emotionally attachedandamoreproductive
worker. The triggers of engagement at the workplace are as important as the end result.
Implications
To begin with, given the fact that incivility has a significant negative influence on employees
within the organisation, there is the need for government and policy makers to enact an
inclusive policy that deals with employee mistreatments and most especially low key
mistreatment. This could be done through the promulgation of a national policy on
psychosocial risk management (PRIMA) as most of the uncivil acts in organisations present
as psychosocial risk factors. Secondly, at the organisational level there is the need to consider
EI of employeesmost especially when recruiting employees so as to avoid squared pegs being
placed in round holes. Similarly, management of organisations should seek to promote the
wellbeing of employees through the elevation of psycho-social risk policies.With this in place,
it will decrease most psychosocial issues such as anti-bullying, anti-violence, sexual
harassment etc. Employees should be trained in the area of EI to enable them handle the
minor challenges that comes with interpersonal relationships within the organisational
space. Through this training, individuals are likely to communicate well, take responsibility
and even make good leaders. Also, heads of banks should encourage diverse cultures in the
organisation in order to decrease the experience of uncivil acts in the banking sector. There
should be an effective management procedure to receive grievance of employees who
encounter discourteous behaviours from their colleagues and this needs to be as discrete as
possible. This in a long run has a way of increasing the reputation of the organisation.
Management (Leaders) also need to model good behaviours within their organisation. This
implies that team leads need to speak politely and respectfully to everyone at the workplace.
References
Adams, G.A. and Webster, J.R. (2013), “Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal
mistreatment and distress”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 697-710.
Akomeah Gyamfi, I. (2013), “Workplace incivility and its effect on performance: a study of the Kumasi
Metropolitan Assembly”, Doctoral dissertation.
Alola, U.V., Olugbade, O.A., Avci, T. and O€ztu€ren, A. (2019), “Customer incivility and employees’
outcomes in the hotel: testing the mediating role of emotional exhaustion”, Tourism
Management Perspectives, Vol. 29, pp. 9-17.
Arasli, H., Hejraty Namin, B. and Abubakar, A.M. (2018), “Workplace incivility as a moderator of the Co-worker
relationships between polychronicity and job outcomes”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1245-1272, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2016-0655. incivility:
a stressor of
Arora, R., Adhikari, B. and Shetty, D. (2012), “Exploring the relationship between employee
engagement and emotional intelligence”, SSRN 2572514. employees
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K. and Fletcher, L. (2017), “The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of
employee engagement: a narrative synthesis”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 31-53.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), Towards a Model of Work Engagement, Career Development
International, Salt Lake City, UT.
Bibi, Z. and Karim, J. (2013), “Workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior: moderating
role of emotional intelligence”, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 352-365.
Biggs, A., Brough, P. andDrummond, S. (2017), “Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping
theory”, The Handbook of Stress and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice, pp. 351-364.
Boateng, I.O. (2020), “Evaluating the effect of customer care in financial institutions: a case study of
the GN bank, Adum–Kumasi”, Doctoral Dissertation.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2018), “The behavioral level of emotional intelligence and its measurement”, Frontiers
in Psychology, Vol. 9, p. 1438.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S.T., Shacklock, K. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2012), “Emotional intelligence, job
satisfaction, well-being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover
intentions in policing”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 428-441.
Bryne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming (Multivariate Applications Series), Vol. 396, Taylor & Francis Group, New York,
p. 7384.
Carlson, K.D. and Wu, J. (2012), “The illusion of statistical control: control variable practice in
management research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 413-435.
Chen, H.T., Wang, C.H. and Shih, I.T. (2021), “Are frontline employees punching bags? The
relationship between interpersonal workplace incivility and employee incivility toward
customers”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 377-388.
Cho, M., Bonn, M.A., Han, S.J. and Lee, K.H. (2016), “Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant
frontline service employee emotions and service performance”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2888-2912.
Clarke, N. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and its relationship to transformational leadership and key
project manager competences”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Dartey-Baah, K. and Mekpor, B. (2017), “The leaders’ emotional intelligence: An antecedent of
employees’ voluntary workplace behaviour. Evidence from the Ghanaian banking sector”,
African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 352-365.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J.J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.), Sage publications, Los Angeles.
Han, S.J., Bonn, M.A. and Cho, M. (2016), “The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant
frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 52, pp. 97-106.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Model, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Hur, W.M., Kim, B.S. and Park, S.J. (2015), “The relationship between coworker incivility, emotional
exhaustion, and organizational outcomes: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion”,
AJEMS Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 701-712.
Irum, A., Ghosh, K. and Pandey, A. (2020), “Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding: a research
agenda”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 958-980.
Jawahar, I.M. and Schreurs, B. (2017), “Interactive effect of leader incivility and trust on work
engagement and performance”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2017 No. 1, 10927,
Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Jelavic, S.R., Aleksic, A. and Braje, I.N. (2021), “Behind the curtain: workplace incivility – individual
actors in cultural settings”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 1249-1263.
Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2009), “The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees’
work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 504-512.
King, J.B. (2020), “Emotional intelligence and its effects on biomarkers of workplace stress”.
Leiter, M. (2013), “Causes and consequences of workplace mistreatment”, Analyzing and Theorizing
the Dynamics of the Workplace Incivility Crisis, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 31-44.
Libbrecht, N., Lievens, F., Carette, B. and Côte, S. (2014), “Emotional intelligence predicts success in
medical school”, Emotion, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 64.
Lim, S. and Cortina, L.M. (2005), “Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and impact
of general incivility and sexual harassment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, p. 483.
Lim, S. and Lee, A. (2011), “Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: does family support
help?”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 95-111, doi: 10.1037/a0021726.
Loh, J.M.I and Loi, N. (2018), “Tit for tat: burnout as a mediator between workplace incivility and instigated
workplace incivility”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 100-111.
Loi, N., Golledge, C. and Schutte, N. (2021), “Negative affect as a mediator of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and uncivil workplace behaviour among managers”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 94-103.
Lui, K.Y., Cho, H., Ha, C. and Lee, D. (2017), “First-person view semi-autonomous teleoperation of
cooperative wheeled mobile robots with visuo-haptic feedback”, The International Journal of
Robotics Research, Vol. 36 Nos 5-7, pp. 840-860.
Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010), “Employee engagement: the key to improving performance”,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 12, p. 89.
Miller, D.T. (2001), “Disrespect and the experience of injustice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 527-553.
Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Wegner, J.W. (2001), “When workers flout convention: a study of
workplace incivility”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 1387-1419.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2010), “The cost of bad behavior”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 64-71.
Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2012), “Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility
and the impact of hierarchical status”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42,
pp. E326-E357.
Porath, C. and Pearson, C. (2013), “The price of incivility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 Nos 1-2,
pp. 115-121.
Reio, T.G. Jr and Sanders-Reio, J. (2011), “Thinking about workplace engagement: does supervisor and
coworker incivility really matter?”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 462-478.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J. and Denyer, D. (2008), “Evidence in management and organizational
science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses”, Academy
of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 475-515.
Sakurai, K. and Jex, S.M. (2012), “Co-worker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and Co-worker
counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor social support”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 150. incivility:
a stressor of
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”, Journal of employees
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, p. 1217.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout
and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009), “How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 893-917.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I.E. and Erez, A. (2016a), “Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and
agenda for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. S57-S88.
Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K. and Lim, S. (2016b), “Incivility hates company: shared incivility attenuates
rumination, stress, and psychological withdrawal by reducing self-blame”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 133, pp. 33-44.
Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a punching bag: the effect of multiple sources
of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 121-139.
Struthers, C.W., Eaton, J., Mendoza, R., Santelli, A.G. and Shirvani, N. (2010), “Interrelationship among
injured parties’ attributions of responsibility, appraisal of appropriateness to forgive the
transgressor, forgiveness, and repentance”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 970-1002.
Swancott, L.J. and Davis, S.K. (2022), “Service with a smile? Engagement is a better predictor of job
satisfaction than emotional intelligence”, Current Psychology, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Tagoe, T. and Quarshie, E.N.B. (2017), “The relationship between emotional intelligence and job
satisfaction among nurses in Accra”, Nursing Open, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 84-89.
Taylor, S.G. and Kluemper, D.H. (2012), “Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace
aggression: the moderating role of personality”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 3, p. 316.
Torkelson, E., Holm, K., B€ackstr€om, M. and Schad, E. (2016), “Factors contributing to the perpetration
of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility
from others”, Work and Stress, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, C.H. and Chen, H.T. (2020), “Relationships among workplace incivility, work engagement
and job performance”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 415-429.
Welbourne, J.L., Gangadharan, A. and Sariol, A.M. (2015), “Ethnicity and cultural values as predictors
of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 205-217.
Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on
performance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 243-274.
AJEMS Yeboah-Kordee, N.S., Amponsah-Tawiah, K., Adu, I.N. and Ashie, A.A. (2018), “An investigation of the
impact of occupational stress on employee performance: evidence from the Ghanaian banking
sector”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 9,
pp. 150-169.
Corresponding author
Kwesi Amponsah-Tawiah can be contacted at: kamponsah-tawiah@ug.edu.gh
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com