University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh UNIVERSITY OF GHANA COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF GHANA BUSINESS SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE MG’T THE MEDIATING ROLE OF LEADERSHIP STYLE IN ORGANISATIONAL ETHICS AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM MTN GHANA BY MAXWELL TABI WILBERFORCE (INDEX NO.: 10235448) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEGREE SEPTEMBER, 2021 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DECLARATION I do hereby declare that this work is the result of my own research and has not been presented by anyone for any academic award in this or any other university for any degree. All references used in this thesis have been fully acknowledged. I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings in the work. 11/11/2021 …………………………………… DATE: …………………… MAXWELL TABI WILBERFORCE (STUDENT) i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this thesis was supervised by me in accordance with laid down procedures by the University. PROFESSOR KWASI DARTEY-BAAH Date: 15/11/2021 (SUPERVISOR) ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION I dedicate this handiwork to the Almighty God whose tender mercies and loving-kindness carried me through thus far. Also, I dedicate this project to my dear one (Edna Baidoo) and all my colleagues, especially Razak, Bridget, Labista, Bawa, Sylvia and Caro who contributed immensely towards the success of this project. iii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my profound gratitude to all those who contributed in diverse ways to make this work a reality. I am especially indebted to my supervisor, Professor Kwasi Dartey- Baah for his generosity, commitment and guidance throughout the research work. Also, I wish to thank all faculty members of the Organisation & Human Resource Management (OHRM) Department, University of Ghana Business School for the various roles they played in creating the enabling environment for me to function. Finally, I am forever grateful to my family and loved ones for your invaluable support and encouragement. God bless you all bountifully. iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION.................................................................................................................................... i CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION...................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. x ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Problem ......................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Research Purpose ........................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Research Questions..................................................................................................... 11 1.6 Research Hypotheses .................................................................................................. 12 1.7 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 12 1.8 The Research Scope .................................................................................................... 13 1.9 Organisation of the Study ........................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 15 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ............................................................................ 15 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15 2.1 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Definition of Leadership .......................................................................................... 15 v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.1.2 Transactional Leadership ......................................................................................... 17 2.1.3 Transformational Leadership ................................................................................... 20 2.1.5 The Social Learning Theory .................................................................................... 24 2.1.6 Organisational Ethics ............................................................................................... 26 2.1.7 Workplace Incivility ................................................................................................ 28 2.1.8 Sources of Workplace Incivility: Co-worker and Supervisor Incivility .................. 30 2.1.9 The Cost of Workplace Incivility ............................................................................ 32 2.2 Empirical Review ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2.1 Leadership Style and Organisational Ethics ............................................................ 34 2.2.2 Organisational Ethics and Transactional Leadership .............................................. 35 2.2.3 Organisational Ethics and Transformational Leadership ........................................ 36 2.2.5 Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility ................................................ 42 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 48 3.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 48 3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 48 3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Methodology ............................................................... 49 3.2 Source of Data ........................................................................................................... 49 3.3 The Research Population ......................................................................................... 49 3.4 Sample Size ................................................................................................................ 50 3.5 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................. 51 3.6 Research Instrument ................................................................................................ 51 vi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.7 Reliability Test Analysis ........................................................................................... 53 3.9 Data Analysis............................................................................................................. 54 3.10 Ethical issues ........................................................................................................... 56 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ........................................................ 57 4.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 57_Toc106614839 4.1 Demographic Features of Participants ................................................................... 57 4.2 Preliminary Analysis ................................................................................................ 60 4.2.1 Normality Test Analysis ........................................................................................ 60 4.3 Structural Equation Model (SEM) Analysis .......................................................... 61 4.3.1 Measurement Model .............................................................................................. 61 4.3.2 Validation of Measurement Module .................................................................... 62 4.3.3 Validity Test ........................................................................................................... 63 4.3.4 Correlation Analysis .............................................................................................. 64 4.3.5 Structural Model Analysis / Interpretation......................................................... 66 4.4 Testing Research Hypothesis ................................................................................... 67 4.4.1 Hypothesis One ...................................................................................................... 67 4.4.2 Hypothesis Two ...................................................................................................... 68 4.4.3 Hypothesis Three ................................................................................................... 68 4.4.4 Summary of Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................... 69 CHAPTHER FIVE ................................................................................................................ 70 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................................... 70 vii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 70 5.1 Relationship Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility ............. 70 5.2 Transformational Leadership as a Mediator Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility ....................................................................................................... 72 5.3 Transactional Leadership as a Mediator Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility ....................................................................................................... 74 CHAPTER SIX ...................................................................................................................... 79 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 79 6.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 79 6.1 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 79 6.2 Practical Implications of Findings .......................................................................... 80 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 82 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 112 QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLES ....................................................................................................... 112 viii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Construct Reliability Analysis ................................................................................. 53 Table 4.1 Demographic Features of Respondents ................................................................... 58 Table 4.2 Normality of Data .................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.3 Measurement Model Validation .............................................................................. 62 Table 4.4 Fornell-Larker Criterion for Discriminant Validity Analysis .................................. 64 Table 4.5 Pearson’s Correlation Matrix of the Research Variables......................................... 65 Table 4.6 Bootstrapping results ............................................................................................... 67 Table 4.7 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results ................................................................. 69 ix University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: leadership style as a mediator between organizational ethics and workplace incivility ................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 2: The CFA Model Measurement with Standardised Item Loadings ........................... 62 x University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to examine relationships between leadership style, organisational ethics and workplace incivility amongst telecommunication workers in MTN Ghana. Specifically, the study explored the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Also, the mediating effect of leadership style between organisational ethics and workplace incivility was assessed. Methodologically, the study was quantitative in nature. Using a cross-sectional survey design, data was collected from employees of MTN Ghana in Accra by means of a structured questionnaire. A sample of 209 respondents were conveniently drawn for the study. Results from structured equation model (SEM) analysis indicated that organisational ethics was significantly and positively related to workplace incivility. The study found that transformational leadership style did not mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and employee workplace incivility. However, transactional leadership partially mediated the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. It is recommended that management emphasize transactional leadership behaviours such as motivating workers through the use of rewards and also putting in place fair and appropriate measures in ensuring discipline among workers. This potentially could engender appropriate conduct among employees which may lower workplace incivility in the company. xi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Background Behavioural patterns, especially unacceptable behaviours, of personnel within an organisation differ and have varying consequences not only for individual employees but the organization as well. This includes “undermining” group performance, teamwork spirit and interpersonal relationship among workers (Ohemeng & Adu-Brobbey, 2018 as cited in Nkansah-Sarkodie, 2019). As expected, employee behaviour should ordinarily fall in line with the norms of the organization. The bottom-line is that these norms, comprising acceptable conduct, language, principles and values culminate in a conducive business climate. This climate is usually established by leadership, and is geared towards the achievement of organizational goals. Unfortunately however, at times some workers put up deviant behaviours that are contrary to the established norms and undermine social relations in the workplace. Such counterproductive behaviours are described as workplace incivility (Leiter, 2013). Workplace incivility, which refers to various forms of “low‐intensity” unacceptable workplace behaviour with an unclear intention to cause damage (Schilpzand et al., 2016a), is a phenomenon associated with leadership and employee behaviour alike. Thus, aside from leadership styles, there exists certain experiences of interpersonal ill-treatment or uncivil behaviours which are mostly elusive and manifest in various ways including disregarding somebody’s efforts or ideas as well as being at the receiving end of disparaging comments (Abolfazl & Vagharseyyedin, 2015). Incivility among employees is a form of workplace deviance, a phenomenon which has gained prominence within organizational research topics over the last two-and-half decades (Dhanani et al., 2021; Mackey et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2021). Similarly, Akomeah Gyamfi (2013) observed that incivility is a pervasive subject matter which 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh has existed for decades; and is prevalent not only in small scale businesses and large organizations in Ghana but is also present in both private firms and state-owned institutions including the Civil Service. The menace occurs in the service industry as well as professional organisations and is generally exhibited when interacting with employees who are subordinates, colleagues or supervisors (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). Workplace incivility is a global affair and is experienced by employees across the globe. For instance, in a research by Cortina et al. (2001 as cited in Schad et al., 2014) involving more than 1000 US civil service workers, it was revealed that over 70% of respondents had experienced one form of workplace incivility or another over the past five years under review. Furthermore, several authors (e.g. Vasconcelos, 2020; Nkansah-Sarkodie, 2019; Holm et al., 2015; Estes & Wang, 2008; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015) reported that workplace incivility is a phenomenon that has become pervasive in organisational set-ups in recent years, and research has demonstrated that incivility in the workplace is rampant (Hülsheger et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2020). For instance, in another study, 54% of participants stated that they had perpetrated incivility against their neighbours in the organization in the past year, 12% had instigated it on many occasions and 3% had done so on daily basis (Reio Jr. & Ghosh, 2009). Workplace incivility thus refers to the unacceptable interpersonal dimensions of work that are associated with negative outcomes regarding the dignity and integrity of employees. These interpersonal dimensions comprise demeaning, abusive, derogatory, threatening, and violent encounters in the work environment. Moreover, there is an array of conducts including bullying, abusive language, customer brawls, sexual harassment, derogatory remarks and the like that are demonstrated by people in an organisation, which can also constitute incivility (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). Broadly speaking, uncivil behaviour in the workplace may be defined to include deliberately refusing to say “hello” or accusing someone verbally with the motive of offending other colleagues emotionally. This is in line with the assertion that 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh workplace incivility is a rude conduct that dents the dignity and self-confidence of workers and generates needless suffering. This, according to Zauderer (2002), signifies a lack of sympathy for the welfare of others and contrary to the expectations of individuals as to how they expect to be treated. Notwithstanding, there is evidence in literature regarding the fact that although sometimes ignored, incivility in workplaces is widespread among Ghanaian employees of which the telecommunication sector can be no exception (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). Adu-Brobbey and Ohemeng (2017) also studied the problem of incivility and its influence on performance from selected public and private organizations in Ghana and found that incivility basically affects performance both at the individual and corporate levels. To be precise, the study established that workplace incivility adversely affects the establishment of friendly and effective employee relationships. It also has psychological impact on workers and impedes the free flow of effectual communication (Adu-Brobbey & Ohemeng, 2017). In effect, incivility has been tagged a secret destroyer because of its propensity to jeopardize pleasure and work output in addition to overall well-being in the workplace (Nkansah- Sarkodie, 2019). Consequently, workplace incivility necessitates careful attention considering the ultimate impact and repercussions it has on corporate bodies. Notwithstanding, there is the issue of ethics that administrations have to contend with in the corporate world (Jehan et al., 2020). Sulmasy (2013, cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019b) clarified that ‘Ethos’, which is the root word for ‘ethics’, was initially talked about in the ancient Greek philosophy, in which it referred to societal values describing the virtuous and moral principles, attitudes, and actions. Organisational ethics is the moral code that guides the behaviour of employees with respect to what is right and wrong in regard to conduct and decision making (Singhapakdi et al., 2008). It has been argued that ethical decision making in the workplace 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh should necessarily take into consideration the individual employee’s best interest as well as the best interest of those impacted (Singhapakdi et al., 2008). Organisational ethics, according to Quierrez (2020), plays an integral part in the management of an organization bringing a long- term success and stability both for the employees and the organization as well. It has been suggested that workers’ readiness to work for a manager may be based on certain considerations, one of which is business or organisational ethics (Quierrez, 2020). Organisational ethics is a practice of applied or professional ethics which examines principles and moral issues that pertain to organisational settings and is applicable to all facets of individual employee behaviour and of the entire firm (Vittell, 2006; Singhapakdi et al., 2008 as cited in Quierrez, 2020). More so, such organisational ethics controls the upsurge, if not eradicates, detractions among workers as they feel contented working in an ethical environment. This may result in transforming the personnel into productive individuals poised for the success of their company. Hence, scholars have argued that if the firm’s management recognizes that workers are really the company's most treasured assets, then leaders should consider caring for them a priority (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017 as cited in Quierrez, 2020). Research has revealed that due to the rising complaints of the general public regarding issues of ethics in the corporate world especially in the United States of America, several organizations have taken steps to curb the situation through the institutionalization of ethics (Vitell & Singhapakdi, 2008). An instance here is that a number of companies have changed their structures and procedures which include crafting innovative ethics portfolios while institutionalizing organisational ethics by means of business ethics code, thus heeding calls for consideration of ethics and social responsibility in their business operations (Vitell et al., 2015). Researchers have argued that as businesses keep expanding globally, the study of ethics has become more and more imperative due to the different socio-cultural settings in which global companies operate. It is further argued that several concerns such as intellectual property rights, 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh insider trading and bribery are gaining prominence as a result of the diverse cultural perspectives from which these issues could be viewed (Vitell et al., 2015). However, the fact that incivility and ethics are contrasting phenomena affecting organisational outcomes suggests the need for leadership as a mediator to bridge the gap between the two concepts. Organizations count on the skills and technical know-how of their leaders to combat the ever changing business environment in order to remain competitive and achieve set goals. Ampofo (2014) describes today’s business environment as more “turbulent”, “chaotic” and more competitive than yesteryears owing to several factors which include technological advancement, globalization, social networking and information sharing. The implication is that firms need good leaders to manage their employees seeing that they play a pivotal role in achieving organizational goals and objectives. Leadership therefore, is a social effect practice that is necessary for the realization of societal and corporate goals; it is both obvious in its absence and enigmatic in its manifestation – recognizable and yet difficult to comprehend (Faeth, 2010). Moreover, a leader is one who selects, trains, teaches and impacts one or more subordinates with diverse expertise, capabilities, and talents while focusing followers’ direction on organizational goals. In consequence, followers readily or loyally devote their total commitment and synchronized energy in attaining not only company mission but also the organization’s targets (Vecchiotti, 2018). Nevertheless, the highly competitive nature of today’s corporate world has given rise to the need for competent and efficient leaders, who will help organizations achieve their goals within a stipulated time frame or even before the stipulated time frame (Schein, 2010). The success or otherwise of the organization in terms of meeting targets, to a large extent, hinges on the style of leadership of the management. As a result, the actions and inactions of the leader provides course to the group hence errors made by supervisors may contribute to the downfall of the company (Sveningsson et al., 2012). 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Furthermore, Albion and Gagliardi (2007) posit that organizations need strong leadership style since personnel management rests mainly on the caliber of leadership in the organization. Thus, leadership is the kingpin of any organization as it determines the accomplishment of goals or failure of the organization. Similarly, Mills (2009) argues that in the absence of leadership, the operationalization and subsequent achievement of tasks are almost impossible. Hence firms see leadership style as a source of competitive advantage and accordingly invest in leadership development (McCauley & McCall Jr, 2014; Hollenbeck et al., 2006). More so, Hunt and Fitzgerald (2018) found that leadership style, regardless of the form it takes which includes transformational, transactional, autocratic, charismatic, bureaucratic, servant, laissez-faire, democratic or situational is vital in almost all industries. Bohórquez (2014) affirmed this statement by noting that leadership style is very significant in an organisation since it provides the desired path to the use of the workforce and brings out the best in an individual. Hence leadership style is the relatively regular pattern of behaviour that personifies a leader (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014). Therefore, leadership style is seen as an amalgamation of traits, abilities and manners which relate to their followers (Lussier & Achua, 2004). Nonetheless, research has shown that transformational and transactional leadership, which this research focuses on as mediating variables, are among the best styles of leadership in terms of employee management (Odumeru & Ogbonna, 2013). Dartey-Baah (2015), for instance, posited that transformational and transactional leadership styles have what it takes to offer “direction” to resolving the multi-faceted organisational crises which the world is presently facing. Certainly, such global organisational problems include workplace incivility. According to Givens (2008), transformational leadership is a process in which managers and employees engage one another in a manner that they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Transactional leadership on the other hand, is largely based on exchanges between a leader and followers, such as using rewards and punishment to 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh influence the followers’ behaviour (Lan et al., 2019). These assertions bring into sharp focus the need to study how style of leadership mediates the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. However, it is worthy of note that telecommunication is among the major revenue-generating areas of Ghana’s economy as a result of the country’s open policy for information and communication technology (Arthur, 2016). The telecom industry presently comprises four major players identified as MTN, Vodafone, AirtelTigo and Glo. Current statistics indicate that Ghana’s telecommunication sector can boast of 40,087,373 subscribers as at October ending, 2019 (NCA, 2020, cited in Baidoo, 2020). The different service operators occupy market shares which has been shown below: Table 1.1 Distribution of Market Segments of Telecommunication Firms in Ghana COMPANY MTN VODAFONE AIRTELTIGO GLO February (2016) 16,787,446 7,859,486 9,936,844 1,103,301 October (2019) 21,463,215 9,328,713 8,572,856 722,589 Market share 53.54% 23.27% 21.39% 1.80% (Source: NCA, 2020) The above table illustrates that MTN is the largest telecommunication company in Ghana, controlling a market share of more than 50% of all the service providers in the telecom industry, a situation which informed the choice of MTN Ghana for this study. 1.2 Research Problem Existing literature has shown that leadership styles have extensively been the subject matter of many studies over the past decades (Garg & Ramjee, 2013; Khan et al., 2013; Al-Ali et al., 2017). According to Matsimbe (2017), there is the need for acquaintance to suitable leadership style that emphasizes “integrity and morality” in relation to workplace incivility. Research suggests that outstanding organisations depend on outstanding leadership, and successful firms 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh are a reflection of the effectiveness of their leaders (Tetteh-Opai & Omoregie, 2015). Effective leadership can change organisations from present to future prospects and influence the overall business climate. This can be done by instilling new values and strategies that highlight on pulling of energy and resources in the employees (Степанова, 2012; Shamir & Howell, 2018). Nonetheless, existing research maintains that without leadership intervention, incivility in the workplace could damage a firm’s performance considering the adverse impact workplace incivility has on individual work happiness, labour strength, enthusiasm, creativeness, obligation, and productivity levels (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Incivility has been found to have a linkage with distractions in the relationship among colleague workers, managers and clients. Thus the adverse effects of incivility involves “complex dynamics” that might transcend work environments (Vasconcelos, 2020a). Considering the fact that incivility possibly has dire consequences on organisational outcomes, there is need for research in an attempt to explain the role of leadership style in mitigating its negative effects by means of organisational ethics. Such an attempt could subsequently enhance the development of intervening strategies to curtail incivility in the work environment. In that regard, Mitchell et al. (2017) found that ethics comes across as one of the most serious challenges confronting organizations which calls for research to unravel the ultimate effect of uncivil behaviours on organisations. It has been argued that organisational ethics not only holds the panacea for workplace incivility but it can also be an important tool in managing an organization to achieve sustainable success and stability for both the organization and its workforce (Quierrez, 2020). Yet there still remains a growing concern and a clarion call within the literature for more attention to be paid to behavioural ethics (e.g., Jennings et al., 2015; Moore & Gino, 2013; Tenbrunsel & Smith- Crowe, 2008; Treviño et al., 2014) pointing to the necessity for research to explore ethics and its relationship with leadership style and incivility in the workplace. More so, Child (2015) 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh observed that the significance of the value of ethical manners regarding organisational ethics and corporate practices (e.g. workplace incivility) had not gained the needed attention until quite recently. As a result, major stakeholders are urging firms to inculcate moral values into their operations in order to promote behaviours and procedures leading to the common good and profit of all (Eryaman, 2008; Child, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2017). Even so, Vasconcelos (2020) argued that workplace incivility is among the most important topics in organisational behaviour studies “under scrutiny” in contemporary times. Notwithstanding, evidence abounds in literature that leadership style plays a pivotal role in influencing the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility (Lee & Jensen, 2014; Felix et al., 2015). This underscores the need for an assessment of the relationships between leadership style, organisational ethics and workplace incivility. While some scholars argue that passive and abusive leaders encourage deviant behaviours among employees (Amanullah, 2021), there exists a general lack of sufficient understanding relative to the relationship between the attitudes and behaviours of leaders and incivility in organisational settings. Precisely, there is limited empirical studies examining transactional and transformational styles of leadership as related to ethics and incivility in organisations. Furthermore, among the constructs and factors that require consideration, style of leadership and workplace ethics are crucial because at all levels of a business organisation, leaders can stimulate behavioural standards that control acceptable conduct of followers (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013 cited in Breevaart et al., 2014; Rousseau, 1999 cited in Haque et al., 2019). According to Akomeah Gyamfi (2013), there have been widespread and wild allegations about the perception of workplace incivility in Ghanaian organisations in recent times in both the electronic and print media; and MTN Company, which is the selected organisation for the current study, can be no exception. Nonetheless, the real effect of workplace incivility on employees and organisations in Ghana still remains unknown (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). For 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh instance, in a study on how workplace incivility impacts employee performance in Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA), Akomeah Gyamfi (2013) found that majority of the respondents had experienced low levels of incivility but the general perception about the incidence of incivility in KMA was high. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in literature regarding the contribution of leadership style toward the mediation of the link existing between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in Ghana’s telecommunication industry as previous literature studied other variables like market orientation, innovation and customer satisfaction (Mahmoud & Hinson, 2012; Yirenkyi, 2012). This is in spite of the fact that there have been reported cases of workplace incivility times as stated earlier, especially in Accra. The status quo certainly provides a research gap which needs to be filled by this study. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that some research work has been done to examine the relationship between leadership style and workplace incivility and the overall effect on organisational outcomes in Ghana (e.g. Ohemeng & Adu-Brobbey, 2018; Adu-Brobbey & Ohemeng, 2017; Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). For example, Ohemeng and Adu-Brobbey (2018) again examined the impact of incivility on employee performance from the Ghanaian perspective. The study established that incivility is very expensive to organizations in the country as it damages creativeness, performance and team work. In another research, Arthur (2016) examined how leadership behaviours affect creativity of workers in Ghana’s telecommunication industry. The study, among other things, established significantly positive correlation between a transactional manager and worker innovativeness. Nevertheless, very little empirical study has been done on the causal effect of leadership style – transactional and transformational – on the connection between organisational ethics and incivility among workers in Ghana’s telecommunication industry. This situation points to a context/knowledge gap. In view of this, an empirical study is needed to inquire about the causal effect or mediation by transactional and transformational styles of leadership in the association between 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh organisational ethics and workplace incivility in the MTN Company within the context of Ghana. 1.3 Research Purpose The overall purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility, as well as the mediating role of transformational and transactional leadership styles in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in the MTN Ghana Company. 1.4 Research Objectives In view of the above stated purpose, precisely this research will: i. Explore the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. ii. Examine the mediating role of transformational leadership style in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. iii. Explore the mediating role of transactional leadership style in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. 1.5 Research Questions i. What is the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana? ii. Will transformational leadership style mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana? iii. Will transactional leadership style mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana? 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.6 Research Hypotheses The following are the hypotheses proposed by the researcher: H1: There is significant negative relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana. H2: Transformational leadership style will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana. H3: Transactional leadership style will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. 1.7 Significance of the Study By achieving the objectives spelt out above, this study will be applicable to research, practice and policy making. In terms of research, the study findings are expected to add to the existing store of knowledge on the concept – the causal effect (mediating role) of leadership style in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. It will also serve as foundation for further research. In the area of practice, the current research is to draw the attention of management to the fact that one of the factors leading to the ultimate achievement of company aims is the conduct of leadership because it has significant influence on employees’ attitude to ethics and uncivil behaviours in the workplace. Therefore, managers would discover which of the leadership styles – transformational or transactional – has the propensity to promote growth; and to give an indication of the efforts that need to be exerted in that regard toward realizing the goals of the firm. Thus, the findings offer worthwhile reference point or resource material to aid professional administration of personnel resource within MTN Ghana Company and beyond. 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In policy, this study proposes useful information for company leaders and policy-makers including board of directors, for example, which will serve as a benchmark for assessing the influence of leadership styles on employees’ ethical conduct versus uncivil behaviour in the workplace. Additionally, the study findings may serve as the basis for determining managerial policy aims and objectives. 1.8 The Research Scope This research focuses on examining leadership style(s), organisational ethics and workplace incivility in the telecommunication industry in Ghana. Thus the study attempts to find out whether or not transformational and transactional leadership styles play a mediating role in influencing workers’ attitude towards organisational ethics as against workplace incivility. It is limited to the employees of Scancom plc. (MTN) within the Greater Accra region of Ghana. 1.9 Organisation of the Study This research work is made up of six main chapters. The first chapter which is introduction, highlights background of the study, problem statement, objectives of the study, research questions, study hypothesis, significance of the study, scope, as well as chapter disposition. Chapter two deals with review of literature. This covers relevant literature on the concepts of leadership style, organizational ethical behaviour and incivility. It analyses the relationships that exist between leadership style – transformational and transactional – and organizational ethics, and leadership style – transformational and transactional – and workplace incivility. The chapter also provides an explanation on the relationship between organizational ethics and incivility in the work environment; and ends with a conceptual framework. Next is chapter three which comprises methodological approaches. The methodology covers sub-topics such as design of the research, data sources and study population, sampling procedure, research instrument, data gathering method, data processing as well as the analysis 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh procedure. The fourth chapter is where the researcher does the presentation, analysis and interpretation of quantitative data. In chapter five, the results of the study are discussed following the analysis of data in the previous chapter. Finally, chapter six provides the summarization of major outcomes, conclusions, practical implications for industry, and suggestions for future studies. The references, together with appendices of resources used in this research were added to complete the thesis. 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 2.0 Introduction In this this chapter, leadership style as a concept is explained. It also seeks to explain organisational ethics as well as workplace incivility and theoretical underpinnings of the study. It further examines the relationships between style of leadership and organisational ethics, as well as style of leadership and workplace incivility. Finally, the chapter seeks to describe the relationship between organisational ethics and incivility in the workplace. 2.1 Theoretical Framework 2.1.1 Definition of Leadership It has been argued that the study of leadership has become an important academic and professional agenda in a fast moving, very complicated, and multi-faceted “globalized world” (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). Although there is no universality with respect to what leadership really is, one commonality underpinning nearly all the existing literature is that leadership is crucial, especially in the corporate world. The underlying philosophy being that, when there is ineffective, inattentive, or toxic leadership, the result is that workers, firms, groups, and even whole societies are affected, sometimes in a very devastating manner (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016 as cited in Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). As stated earlier, there are a myriad of definitions for leadership that have been propounded by many scholars. For example Gharibvand (2012) sees leadership as how a leader communicates basically and relates to followers, how the manager inspires including the manner in which a leader directs team members to accomplish assigned tasks. However, it is necessary to have an appropriate knowledge of the importance of leadership; and the reason for a preferred type of leadership (for the current research) is also significant. 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh According to Gandolfi (2016), a functioning definition of leadership should have a recipe of five rudiments which include the presence of one or more leaders, subordinates or followers, action and legitimacy or legitimate action, a well-defined course of action, as well as clearly defined aims and objectives. Based on the above criteria, the researcher adopted the definition below for the current study: “A leader is one or more people who selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission and objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational mission and objectives.” (Winston & Patterson, 2006, p.7; Gandolfi & Stone, 2017). This definition was selected because it reflects the very ingredients required for defining a functioning leadership as provided above. Also, Gandolfi and Stone (2018) explained that leadership is not just simplistic or one-dimensional. Instead, it requires a deeper knowledge of the role of employees and supervisors in the eventual actualisation of the company’s mission and vision. Furthermore, research has shown that employees’ perception of effective leadership is closely linked with the leader being driven, able to inspire, and prioritize needs, which in turn produces a sense of safety and calm for followers (McDermott et al., 2013, cited in Gandolfi & Stone, 2017). This assertion points to a direct connection between the leader and the subordinates as demonstrated by the leadership definition above. A critical look at the explanation on leadership offered by McDermott et al. (2013 as cited in Gandolfi & Stone, 2017) points to the idea of leadership style and how leadership styles are nurtured over time. Thus leadership style has been explained as a deliberate manner in which a leader tactfully influences and manipulates feelings while appealing to collective identity to create unified political individualities among followers to accomplish a particular goal (McDermott, 2020). 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Research has shown however, that not all styles of leadership necessarily ensures a better future outcome for the organisation. Hence, the choice of a leadership type is critical choice, especially considering the present global “leadership crisis”. The era has come for consideration to be given to leadership approaches – such as transformational and transactional leadership – that are able to provide direction to finding solutions to the current crisis the world is confronted with (Dartey-Baah, 2015). Consequently, Rowold (2014) posits that modern day leaders are expected to be strategic thinkers who ought to consider external and internal environments to enable them carve out the required answers for managerial issues on daily and long-term basis. According to Burns (1978), leadership styles can be categorised into two: transactional leadership and transformation leadership. Nonetheless, it has been argued that a manager’s decision to choose either transformational or transactional style of leadership may be influenced by certain factors from both within and outside (environment) of the organization (Vera & Crossan, 2004 as cited in Birasnav, 2014). The transactional and transformational leadership literature below highlights some of the impacting factors. 2.1.2 Transactional Leadership Hartzler-Weakley (2018) describes transactional leadership as a style of leadership that relies on motivating employees through rewards and punishments. It requires supervision, oversight, organization and performance-monitoring. Transactional leadership emphasizes definite jobs while using prizes as well as punishment to influence workers. In other words, employees are “rewarded” when they “succeed” and they are punished “when they fail” (Cherry, 2012 as cited in Achunguh, 2020). Thus, transactional leadership could summarily be defined as a leadership approach grounded on an agreement of contract between a supervisor and subordinates, in which both parties anticipate from the other commitment to the conditions underlying such a 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh contractual agreement that have been agreed upon in order to ensure the continuity of the relationship between both parties (Dartey-Baah, 2015). Moreover, Bolden et al. (2003, p. 15 as cited in Dartey-Baah, 2015) described transactional leadership as a “traditional model structured approach” which is centred on submission to “parameters, guidelines, rules”, and productivity criteria, to reach expected and measured outcomes Russell, 2011 as cited in Dartey-Baah, 2015). Ali et al. (2013) observed that the focus of a transactional manager is more concerned with employee’s self-interest by means of clearly stated leader and follower exchange-based relationships. Thus, to ensure the accomplishment of financial goals or profitability, transactional leaders put in place specific rules, regulations and performance criteria. In addition to that, such leaders institute reward and punishment schemes with the view to ensuring affirmative behaviours while discouraging negative behaviours (Russell, 2011). This state of affairs thus depicts transactional leaders as more “task- or goal-oriented than people-oriented” (Dartey-Baah, 2015). In a similar vein, Tung (2016) observed that the leader-follower association in transactional leadership relies on a symbiotic agreement in which the leader offers monetary or material rewards to the subordinate in exchange for the attainment of objectives or profit to the leader. Furthermore, Ivey and Kline (2010) stressed that the major priority of transactional leaders is the achievement of results. In this case, employees fulfil the conditions of the leader in order to win a prize in recompense or to escape from punishment for failing to achieve an objective (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Consequently, transactional leadership is realistic as it concentrates on realising clearly spelt out goals (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Aarons, 2006). Additionally, transactional leaders place premium on clearly defining tasks while meting out punishment for abysmal performance and incentives or rewards for a job well done (McCleskey, 2014 as cited in Rahman, 2017). Research has established that transactional leadership is categorized into three main components which are contingent rewards, 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh management by exception (active) and management by exception (passive) (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2006 as cited in Ramkumar & Priya, 2013). • Contingent Rewards: Leaders who apply the contingent reward approach emphasize standards, and motivate their subordinates to measure up to such standards. This is because the leaders will draw employees’ attention to the fact that rewards will be given to high achievers. In like manner, employees are made aware that bad performance attracts punishment (Bass et al., 2003; Nicholson, 2007). • Management by Exception (Active): Management-by-Exception (Active) occurs when leaders create curative criticisms or employ negative reinforcement. In this case, subordinates are closely monitored in order to identify their faults and blunders. This implies that active transactional leaders put in corrective measures if workers deviate from set standards. Such leaders enforce rules beforehand in order to identify and prevent mistakes from occurring (Antonakis et al., 2003 as cited in Walsh, 2018). • Management by Exception (Passive): Leaders in this category make sure that employees observe pre-determined principles. Passive leader only gets involved when set objectives are not achieved and problems set in. Such leaders do not involve themselves until the situation worsens, thus delaying to take action until issues are brought to their attention (Antonakis et al., 2003as cited in (Willis et al., 2017). Notwithstanding, transactional leadership has been criticised by some scholars. For example, Pearce and Sims Jr. (2002) were of the view that not every reward has the potential to inspire subordinates to increase performance. So transactional leaders may have to place emphasis on identifying the right rewards suitable enough to motivate or influence employees depending on their peculiar needs. Then again, transactional leadership, according to Khan (2017), views employee activity from a behaviourist perspective. The behaviourist theory is premised on the 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh idea that all behaviours are learnt through stimulus-response conditioning (Skinner, 1904 – 1990 as cited in Zhou & Brown, 2015). This means that employees will only exhibit certain behaviours based on the kind of reward or punishment leadership offers. In view of this, Khan (2017) argued that transactional leadership inspires, praises and provides incentives to subordinates only at the foundational stage but fails to exceed set targets. Therefore, this situation may end up discouraging higher levels of individual accomplishment, neither will it aid in professional development of workers (Khan, 2017). 2.1.3 Transformational Leadership The concept of “transforming leadership” was introduced by Burns (1978). He defined transformational leadership as the process by which leaders and their subordinates elevate one another to greater levels of ethics and motivation (Burns, 1978). Later on, Bass (1985) improved upon Burns' ideas and developed it into what has now become known as the transformational leadership theory (Campbell, 2020; Burns, 2004). The transformational leadership theory places emphasis on a strong relationship between leaders and followers based on reciprocal motivation and advancement that transforms subordinates into leaders on one hand, and may translate leaders into moral agents on the other hand (Campbell, 2020; Barbinta & Mursean, 2017 as cited in Campbell, 2020; Burns, 1978 as cited in Tambe & Krishnan, 2000). Dartey-Baah (2015) observed that transformational leadership is the type of leader who employs a functioning blend of “holistic and individualistic approach” in achieving shared aims and aspirations of a team. Dartey-Baah stressed that a transformational leader is fully aware that the realization of collective aims depends on interpersonal relationships and performance of the individual workers of a company. Another author described transformational leadership style as leadership that inspires, encourages and empowers workers to be innovative and 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh creative towards change that will result in catapulting the company into future success (Giddens, 2018). Thomson et al. (2016) argued that the transformational style of leadership is characterized by manager-subordinate associations, business outcomes as well as ethics and motivation. The authors linked this kind of leadership to growths in organizational loyalty, values, desires, and workers’ growths in terms of gratification, empowerment, self-confidence, philosophies, inspiration, trust while there is a decrease in voluntary turnover intentions (Thomson et al., 2016). Mathew and Gupta (2015 as cited in Appelbaum et al., 2018) also accentuated the human relations aspect and described the transformational manager as one that underscores the “emotional intelligence” and “empathy” of employees and energizes them to pursue desires. Similarly, McCaffrey and Reinoso (2017 as cited in Sayed & Ansari, 2020) emphasized the point that a transformational leader influences personnel in relation to changes which take place in the firm through resilient ambition, inspiring direction, and intelligent drive. Transformational managers are also synonymous with creation of original ideas, effecting necessary changes in complicated circumstances, and skills for resolving conflicts while employing passionate or “ideological appeals” to transform employees’ behaviours or conduct (West et al., 2004). According to Parry (2013), for transformational leaders to perform effectively, they need to exhibit some key attributes which include resourcefulness, group orientation, ability to teach, a sense of responsibility and an appreciation or recognition of individual employee efforts. In view of that, Yukl (2008) affirms that transformational leaders cause significant changes in the behavioural attitudes and dispositions of workers, thereby helping build commitment for the firm’s mission and objectives. Notwithstanding, Kark and Shamir (2013) suggested that it is imperative to consider certain components of transformational leadership behaviours which 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh can be manifested by leaders under various circumstances. Furthermore, studies (Bass, 1990 as cited in Walter & Bruch, 2010) show that essentially transformational leadership has four constituents namely: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized influence (empowerment). • Idealized influence: Idealized influence describes a leader’s capacity to use substantial authority and influence subordinates (Franco & Matos, 2015 as cited in Novak et al., 2020). Leaders in this category focus on reliance, abilities or personal qualities, and ethics (Guay, 2013). According to Kark et al. (2003), such leaders offer sacrifices on behalf of the group, exhibit high standards of ethics and serve as role model. In view of this, Warrilow (2012 as cited in Dartey-Baah & Addo, 2018) noted that idealized supervisors or leaders show resilient signs while stimulating the emotions of followers by means of explicitly outlined values. Idealised influence offers more significance to transformational leadership, without which the remaining three dimensions may be rendered less effective as it shows the degree to which employees respect, trust and identify with their managers or leaders (Prasad & Junni, 2016 as cited Dartey-Baah & Addo, 2018). • Inspirational motivation: It refers to leaders who are able to communicate high hopes to their subordinates (Northouse, 2016 as cited in Jameel & Ahmad, 2019). The inspirational motivation dimension describes the improved inspiration that leaders arouse in employees by concentrating on the employees’ passions as opposed to day- to-day interactions in the work environment. They are innovative and “goal-oriented” (Khattak et al., 2017 and Teymournejad & Elghaei, 2017 as cited in Al Ahmad et al., 2019). This dimension of leadership induces subordinates’ involvement within the firm by fashioning out attractive visions coupled with individual expressive effort and its associated results (Ghadi et al., 2015). Inspirational motivation managers rely on 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh deliberations and dialogues, paying much attention to the optimistic perception of the future, as against the present situation, to persuade subordinates in support of collective visions which engenders employee commitment towards the company (Korkmaz & Erdogan, 2014 as cited in Hussein & Yesiltas, 2020). • Intellectual stimulation: Intellectual stimulation involves leadership that promotes creativity and innovation among workers (Mesu, Sanders, & van Riemsdijk, 2015; Northouse, 2016). Moreover, Ghadi et al. (2013 as cited in Alqatawenh, 2018) observed that managers who exhibit intellectual stimulation embolden workers to interrogate suggestions, reason imaginatively, create and take calculated risks, demonstrate intellectual stimulation. Such leadership is able to question the prevailing circumstances in the workplace – such as culture, organisational ethics, etc and encourage employees to follow suit. • Individualized Influence (Empowerment): Individualized consideration refers to leaders who pay heed to the peculiar desires or needs of their followers’ (Mesu et al., 2015; Northouse, 2016). This is where leaders identify the differences in employees and provide individualized care and mentorship which inspires the employees to exert power in making decisions (Voon et al., 2011). Some scholars (Despin, 2017; McKinnon-Russell, 2015; Flanigan et al., 2017) have argued that a transformational leaders is an epitome of that kind of leaders that firms and employees demand nowadays. That demand is premised on the substantial influence transformational leadership exerts on business results like personnel performance (Lee et al., 2011; García- Morales et al., 2012), among others. However, it is worthy of note that the dimensions of transformational leadership are applicable to behavioural outcomes in workplaces. Thus, “the concepts of transformational leadership describe the attributes of a leader that possesses transformational leadership. Therefore, the dimensions of transformational leadership affect 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh the outcome of an organization” (Campbell, 2020: p.12). Nonetheless, some researchers (Yousaf, 2017; Lee, 2014) have critiqued transformational leaders for lack of concerns about organisational ethics and morality. For example, Lee (2014) observed that transformational leadership should be genuinely based on the principles of ethics and moral foundations but not as a model which is based on traits disguised in behaviour-based clothing. 2.1.5 The Social Learning Theory The underpinning philosophy or framework for this research is based on the social learning theory by Bandura (1977, 1986) which suggests that people learn from rewards and punishments and by means of vicarious learning (Zeng et al., 2021; Bandura, 1977, 1986; Lam et al., 2010). Vicarious learning means learning through observation and imitation. In consequence, employees are motivated to learn important lessons on what to do, and what not to do, by observing their leaders’ conducts and the consequences of such conducts (Lam, Kraus, & Ahearne, 2010). Brown and Mitchell (2010 as cited in Taylor & Pattie, 2014) observed that several researchers (e.g. Madison & Eva, 2019; Usman, Hameed, & Manzoor, 2018; Lam et al., 2010) applied social learning theory to explain the influence of leadership style on workplace behaviours and the subsequent outcomes. Similarly, Brown and Treviño (2006) suggested that the social learning theory is applicable in understanding negative outcomes of leadership style. Hence, transactional and transformational leaders can impact employee behaviour through the two basic principles of social learning: (i) reward and punishment (ii) vicarious learning. Regarding the first principle, transactional leaders can use both incentives or rewards and punitive measures to hold workers accountable to moral standards in terms of organisational ethics (Bedi et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2005; Herminingsih & Supardi, 2017). On the other hand, transformational leaders might use various forms of motivation (which may include incentives / reward) to induce employees to develop positive attitude towards organisational ethics and eschew behavioural acts of incivility (Harrison, 2011). 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Consequently, an application of the social learning theory can enhance behavioural change and adherence to organisational principles when employees are made aware of the costs and benefits that come with various behaviours that are deemed appropriate and inappropriate (Bandura, 1977; Brown et al., 2005). Thus, transformational managers may create awareness among employees on the negative effects of uncivil behaviour such as bullying on company outcomes. This might discourage employees from perpetrating uncivil behaviours, thereby minimizing workplace incivility. Also, when workers observe that conducts that are in line with organisational ethics are rewarded and inappropriate conduct is punished – as associated with a transactional leader, they (workers) are more likely to act accordingly (Jordan et al., 2013). Conversely, when inappropriate behaviour goes unpunished or the consequences of violating the company code of conduct are unclear, employees are more likely to demonstrate deviant behaviours (Jordan et al., 2013; Brown & Treviño, 2006). In this way, employees learn vicariously — i.e., they learn whether certain behaviours are desirable or not by witnessing the consequences faced by colleagues engaged in such acts (Mayer et al., 2009, 2010 as cited in Taylor & Pattie, 2014). Again, the social learning theory relates to transformational leadership in the form of idealized influence. The idealised influence describes a leader’s capacity to use substantial authority to influence subordinates (Harrison, 2011; Franco & Matos, 2015). Thus the leader acts as a role model and focuses on reliance, abilities or personal qualities, including adhering to organisational ethics (Guay, 2013). As a result, employees learn from the idealised leader “vicariously” through observation (Harrison, 2011). Thus transformational leadership could promote organisational ethics among workers by means of vicarious learning. The above analysis implies that leadership style – transformational and transactional – may influence the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility through motivation in the form of rewards and punishments, and observation which 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh are the tenets of social learning theory. Hence, the social learning theory is of particular significance to this study. 2.1.6 Organisational Ethics Organisational ethics, as defined by Mahan (2019 as cited in Ocon, 2020), is the moral code guiding the behaviour of workers with respect to what is right and wrong in regard to conduct and decision making. Mahan (2019) further explained that ethical decision making in the workplace should take into consideration individual employee’s best interest as well as that of those who will be impacted by such a decision. In the world of business, ethics is often interpreted to mean observing legal and regulatory rules, and is mostly understood as being synonymous with the word “compliance” (Fox et al., 2010). Minnis and Sherlock (2020) described organisational ethics as the basis of healthy and sustainable organisations. The authors stressed that organisational ethics is a shared responsibility co-created by engaging organisational stakeholders coupled with “lived experience” that has been acquired through strategic development of human resource initiatives in the firm. It is noteworthy that ethical behavior in the workplace can engender positive employee behaviours leading to organizational growth just as unethical behaviour can cause bad company image and its subsequent collapse (Mahan, 2019 as cited in Ocon, 2020). Practically speaking, organisational behaviour is the application of ethics and moral values to daily business procedures, activities, and policy guidelines (Grigoropoulos, 2019). Ethics as a practice involves to everybody working in an organization, irrespective of their rank, level of accountability level, and job description (Grigoropoulos, 2019). There are morality rules and ethical behaviour code that applies to all people alike (Drucker, 1981as cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019). Ethical behaviour is directly linked with actions, which are considered as “honesty, integrity, morality and good management practices” (Paliwal, 2006, p.4 as cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019a), while earning returns for the company. In recent years, scholars have 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh proposed certain parameters like globalization, technological advancement and the management of gifted-personnel which can determine the extent to which ethics could be analysed (Picciano, 2011, cited in Huffman, Shaw & Loyless, 2020; Eryaman, 2007 as cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019b; Frynas & Melahi, 2011; Noe et al., 2014 as cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019b). Furthermore, there are factors which inhibit moral intents and conduct, research has revealed. These include increasing rate of competition, pressure to generate more revenue and return on investment, political corruption, and disrespect for group obligation, morality, and honesty (Parvaresh, 2019; Grigoropoulos, 2019). Subsequently, businesses that consciously operate in accordance with ethical standards and morals and values stand to benefit in terms of organisational outcomes (Brimmer, 2007 as cited in Oladinrin & Ho, 2016). Also, Quierrez (2020) asserts that ethics is the foundation upon which employees’ moral decision as to whether a specific deed is right or wrong is based. The researcher further avers that whatever course of action employees consider as rightful impacts the overall culture of the organisation and that may eventually cause its success or failure. Notwithstanding, the principles of organisational ethics do not exist in isolation, they are anchored in socio-cultural values. For instance, showing respect by greeting, inspiring others, and maintaining good interpersonal relationships are normal, everyday aspects of most cultures. Such aspects of culture are also “part of ethics that every individual, whether you are a boss or a simple employee of the company, should always bring in themselves and believe that everything will work for the goodness of everyone and of the organization where they belong” (Quierrez, 2020: p.163). It is instructive to note however, that unethical practices are borne out of the self-centred personality traits, thereby promoting an “everyone-for-himself” atmosphere, which is counter- productive (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Pope, 2015). In contrast, when the work environment encourages workers and guides them to be civil or sensitive to the well-being of all company 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh stakeholders, all parties involved stand to benefit. Thus employees and leadership of the firm have to collaborate towards common goals and objectives, being guided by the shared mission and vision by means of organisational ethics (Treviño et al., 2014; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Additionally, Grigoropoulos (2019) asserts that though generosity, morality, and ethics are developed through socialisation, there are procedures and rules with explicitly outlined procedures regarding the performance of duties in the organisation. Such procedures and rules can guide the organisation through decision-making processes. 2.1.7 Workplace Incivility Andersson and Pearson (1999), who proposed workplace incivility to be a new field of study on negative workplace behaviours, posited that uncivil behaviours among co-workers in the workplace are more likely to be retorted with more drastic forms of negative action. Put simply, workplace incivility is defined as a “low-intensity deviant workplace behaviour with an ambiguous intent to harm, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, pg. 457). Based on this original definition, three distinctive characteristics conceptually distinguish workplace incivility from other forms of deviant behaviour (Gregg, 2021). In the first place, “incivility is a low-intensity and non-physical form of deviance/mistreatment” (Gregg, 2021, p.3). This implies that classic uncivil behaviours refer to discourteous or rude behaviours. Hence, behaviours that qualify to be workplace incivility may include passing insensitive comments about someone, winking the eyes, chuckling, questioning a colleague about their private matters, or disregarding somebody (Cortina et al., 2013; Yao et al., 2021 as cited in Gregg, 2021). These kinds of conducts are usually considered minor acts of mistreatment that constitute incivility in the work environment (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001). The minor nature of these behavioural incivility make it theoretically different from other forms of workplace deviant behaviours which involve more 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh aggression – such as bullying, sexual harassment, physical abuse – with the intention to cause harm (Hershcovis et al., 2007; Lim & Cortina, 2005 as cited in Gregg, 2021). Secondly, the workplace incivility definition highlights an “ambiguous” motive or intention to cause harm. Gregg (2021) explains that although somebody may become a victim of uncivil treatment, being able to understand the real intention behind the instigator’s behavioural incivility might be difficult. As a result, incivility is in sharp contrast with other kinds of workplace maltreatment like abusive supervision, which show clear mischievous intents to harm or inflict pain on someone (Duffy et al., 2002; Tepper, 2000 as cited in Gregg, 2021). Thirdly, the workplace incivility definition above alludes to a disregard for workplace norms for reciprocal respect. Thus, “workplace incivility is both generic, in that workplace norms can be violated in any organization; and specific at the same time, because workplace norms are not the same across different work environments” (Gregg, 2021, p.4). The definition provides no content based on gender so there is no suggestion of dissimilarities in supremacy between targets (victims) or instigators. Such features make incivility different from abusive leadership or sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Tepper, 2000 as cited in Gregg, 2021), which are mostly directed at particular targets like junior staff. Schilpzand et al. (2016) contend that owing to these differences, incivility has received less research attention compared with other kinds of workplace maltreatment, despite its prevalence. On the other hand, evidence abounds in literature that researchers are progressively realizing that many of the perceived cases of behavioural incivility in the workplace are ones that are seen to be more subtle and concealed (Dhanani et al., 2021; Stewart et al., 2009; Yao et al., 2021). According to Cortina and Magley (2014), workplace incivility is “insidious” and “subtle in nature”, and hard to recognize, control, and avoid. Yet in spite of its “low intensity” and unclear motive, workplace incivility has been identified to have varying repercussions on employee behavioural and performance results (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Evidence in literature 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh highlights the proposal that “incivility is instigative by nature” because it provokes reciprocity and destructive recompense. The ultimate result is a cycle of growing negativity in employee behaviours in the work environment. (Andersson & Pearson, 1999 as cited in Schilpzand et al., 2016; Gregg, 2021). Moreover, Reio Jr. and Trudel (2017) asserted that workplace incivility might trigger conflict and the subsequent undesirable behaviours as a result of conflict. This assertion is in agreement with existing literature in which behavioural incivility in organisations or work environments was found to be “both an antecedent and outcome” of conflict situations (Reio & Trudel, 2013). 2.1.8 Sources of Workplace Incivility: Co-worker and Supervisor Incivility There is ample evidence to suggest that majority of the studies on incivility lump the incidence of incivility perpetrated by supervisors together with co-worker instigated incivility, without distinguishing their apparently varying impacts (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Reason is the basic measure of workplace incivility is mostly concerned with rude behaviours that could be displayed by both managers and colleague workers in the place of work (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013). However, Leiter et al. (2010 as cited in Geldart et al., 2018) stressed how important it is to specifically measure the impact of perceptions of incivility instigated by co-workers vis-à-vis incivility instigated by supervisors. This could help in proffering appropriate remedial measures aimed at minimizing, specifically, supervisor and co- worker incivility respectively (Leiter et al., 2011; Leiter et al., 2012; Laschinger et al., 2012). Brehm and Brehm (1981 as cited in Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013) classified the sources or instigators of workplace incivility under two broad categories: co-worker incivility and supervisor incivility. This implies that supervisors and co-workers constitute the two major groups of individuals who perpetrate incivility in work environments. Co-worker incivility may be defined as uncivil behaviours which are instigated by employees who are co-workers, examples of which include passing spiteful remarks, sending “snippy” emails, gossiping, and 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh marginalizing a colleague (Brehm, 2019; Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). On the other hand, supervisor incivility refers to most of the same forms of rude or uncivil behaviours employees engage in, except that these forms of uncivil behaviours originate from the supervisor (Akomeah Gyamfi, 2013). Comparatively, Schilpzand et al. (2016) and Ostrofsky (2012) argue that supervisor-instigated incivility can be more damaging compared with incivility instigated by co-workers, seeing that employees who see themselves as targets or victims of such uncivil conducts also rely on those same supervisors for assessment and subsequent rewards. Gregg (2021) observed that leaders who treat their followers rudely are likely to be considered as flouting social norms of acceptable behaviour. As a result, there is a greater likelihood of perceiving as more uncivil compared with co-workers (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Leiter et al., 2010). Moreover, when it comes to supervisor-instigated and co-worker-instigated incivility, the position of authority possessed by leaders gives them the upper hand over workers. Studies have demonstrated that perpetrator attributes, which include having disproportionate power in a relationship (Cortina et al., 2001) are associated with initiated incivility in the workplace. Furthermore, some researchers have investigated the prevalence of co-worker and supervisor incivility distinctly as well as the usefulness of civility mediation efforts (Leiter et al., 2011; Geldart et al., 2018). Such researchers recorded more incidences of co-worker instigated incivility than supervisor-instigated incivility following the institution of remedial measures in the affected environments. Bruk-Lee and Spector (2006 as cited in Adams & Webster, 2013) also established that disagreements with supervisors or co-workers present varied outcomes. Whilst supervisor-instigated incivility or conflict was likely to result in counterproductive work attitudes that are detrimental to the organisation, that of co-workers was perceived to be more targeted at individual employees. In another empirical study, for example, Reio and Sanders- Reio (2011) examined the rate at which employees in the United States were victims of co- 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh worker and supervisor acts of incivility. Results provided evidence that both kinds of workplace incivility were negative predictors of employees’ attitude to well-being, pointing to a similarity in occurrence of both co-worker and supervisor uncivil behaviours. In addition, Holm, Torkelson and Backstrom (2015) established that co-worker-instigated incivility has a direct relationship with negative consequences like poor psychosomatic well-being, poor job satisfaction and employee turnover intents. Similarly, Nitzshe et al. (2018 as cited in Samad et al., 2021) examined the relationship between workplace incivility and worker well-being. Findings showed supervisor-instigated incivility was significantly more common in contrast to incivility initiated by co-workers incivility. The study also found that workplace incivility initiated by both co-workers and supervisors positively predicted expressive fatigue and cynicism, which are important aspects of exhaustion. Therefore, it is imperative to examine supervisor/manager-instigated and co- worker incivility since both forms of incivility have damning consequences on the organisation in different ways (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011; Backstrom, 2015; Gregg, 2021). Hence, this current study concentrates on behavioural acts of incivility perpetrated by both supervisors or managers and co-workers (and its relationship with organisational ethics and workplace incivility) as perceived by the employees. 2.1.9 The Cost of Workplace Incivility According to Schilpzand et al. (2014, 2016), incivility is an expensive and ubiquitous workplace conduct with significant adverse emotional, mental, and behavioural out-turns for its victims, observers, and instigators. Moreover, it has been identified as a contemporary means by which prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, especially against women may be expressed in firms (Cortina et al., 2013). According to Schilpzand et al. (2014), the increasing spate of perceived supervisor and co-worker uncivil behaviours in the United States in recent times for example, is alarming as the show that incivility upsets many workers and has a huge 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh financial implications for the organizations in which they (employees) work. Moreover, the human costs borne by employees who are subjected to workplace incivility are quite severe. They may, for instance worry, try to avoid the instigator, withdraw from work engagement, and even take their frustrations out on customers (Porath & Pearson, 2013). In recent times, many studies have been conducted on various types of workplace violence and its negative effects on both individuals and companies (Hershcovis et al., 2017; Hershcovis et al., 2007). These studies have concerned different dimensions of aggressive behaviours ranging from physical violence and harassment to milder forms such as psychological aggression, all of which can be considered as counterproductive work behaviours (Tamunomiebi & Ukwuije, 2021; Pearson et al., 2005). One such dimension of aggressive behaviour is workplace incivility which is a subtle form of interpersonal negative behaviour characterized by rudeness and disrespect (Bai et al., 2016; Cortina et al., 2001). If behavioural incivility is not checked, it forms the foundation for ‘norms’ for subsequent behaviour which has a spiral effect on the entire organisation as a general climate of rudeness (Lim & Lee, 2011 as cited in Torkelson et al., 2016). This assertion is consistent with earlier findings which suggest that one difficulty with workplace incivility is that when it is attached to the behaviour of employees, it can involve the total organisation as a snowball effect (Felbinger, 2008; Pearson, 2010; Sayers et al, 2011) Nonetheless, it has been observed that incivility does not only affect the entire organization but also the stress associated with workplace incivility could be passed on to the family or home (Vasconcelos, 2020; Pearson et al., 2005). Uncivil behaviour in the work environment can cascade downwards through the organization as third parties to the uncivil interaction observe and subsequently adopt similar behaviour, either directly or by receiving second-hand information about an uncivilized encounter in the workplace (Cicerali & Cicerali, 2017; Torkelson et al., 2016). In that way a supervisor that acts in an uncivil manner can become a 33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh bad example of a role model for behaviour in the workplace (Torkelson et al., 2016; Sakurai & Jex, 2012). Workplace incivility is also referred to as bullying, emotional abuse, and mobbing; and it (incivility) requires the needed attention. This is because uncivil behaviours have been identified to be costly, widespread and may be a precursor to workplace aggression and violence (Glendenning, 2001 as cited in Estes & Wang, 2008; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2010; Hills, 2018). Also, research has revealed that uncivil behaviours among the employees may lead to absenteeism, lack of commitment, low morale, and turnover of intentions (Arthur, 2016; Zia- ud-Din et al., 2017). Workplace incivility, in its various forms such as bullying and abusive supervision, has been described as the “cancer” of the workplace (Leiter et al., 2015; Glendinning, 2001 as cited in Nauman etal., 2019). In addition, incivility has been recognized as probably one of the most persistent kinds of antisocial behaviours leading to insomnia, nervousness and emotional exhaustion among employees in the workplace (Nauman et al., 2019; Cortina, 2008). 2.2 Empirical Review 2.2.1 Leadership Style and Organisational Ethics The relationship between leadership style and organisational ethics is a major topic of scholarly research (e.g. Zhu et al., 2011; Floyd, 2010; Mohamad, 2015). Existing literature indicates that the styles that leaders exhibit in their organizations can have immense and consistent impact on several facets (e.g. attitude to performance, incivility and commitment) of employees’ ethical behaviour in the light of organisational ethics (Felix et al., 2015; Schwarz et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2019). Having a clearer understanding of how the values of the leader impact organisational ethics, policies and actions within the workplace is becoming increasingly significant considering the number of organisational scandals that have been reported in 34 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh contemporary times (e.g. Khokhar & Zia-ur-Rehman, 2017; Singhapakdi & Vitell, 2007 as cited in Majluf & Navarrete, 2011; Hood, 2015). As a result, some studies have sought to find out the connection that exists between the leadership behaviours (transformational and transactional) and organizational ethics as discussed in detail below. 2.2.2 Organisational Ethics and Transactional Leadership A research was done by Felix et al. (2015) on transactional leadership style and organisational ethics in Nigeria. Using the simplified sampling method, a total of 400 public sector employees from four ministries were sampled for the study. Structural model analysis showed no significant relationship between organisational ethics (regarding intellectual ethical development) and transactional leader behaviours. Findings rather revealed that contingent reward is one major linkage between transactional leadership and moral reasoning. This implies that the use of rewards to motivate employees in specific situations, like being able to meet high performance targets, can promote ethical conduct among workers. However, the authors argued that the individual qualities of a leader such as cognitive moral development may demand the use of a specific leadership traits. In addition, the study discovered that managers who exhibited high moral standards were considered to transformational leaders by the workers. Therefore, the study concluded that the determinants of the relationship between moral reasoning regarding organisational ethics and leadership style are hinged more on individual leadership values and motivational beliefs. Furthermore, Hood (2003) undertook a study to analyse the relationship between leadership style, CEO values and ethical practices in selected organizations. The Findings of the research demonstrated that transactional leadership was significantly related to two – morality-based and personal values – out of the four categories of variables (personal, social, competency- based and morality-based values) used for the study. Thus, per the study results, transactional leaders exhibiting morality-based and personal values are likely to foster ethical practices 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh among employees in the organization. Therefore, organizations have to critically assess both values of ethics and the leadership behaviours of supervisors so as to ensure the practice of is observed in the organization. Notwithstanding, Floyd (2010) examined whether there is a relationship between leadership styles – transactional and transformational – in higher educations and organisational ethics, and whether the institutionalization of ethics is related to a more ethical work climate. The study findings showed a positive and moderately significant correlations between transactional leadership and both implicit and explicit forms of ethics institutionalization. Thus, moderate relationships existed between transactional leadership and explicit forms of organisational ethics. However, it must be noted that the study also found a moderate correlation between transformational leadership and organisational ethics. Hence the concluded, among other things, that there is a significant relationship between both transformational and transactional leaders and implicit forms of ethics institutionalization. 2.2.3 Organisational Ethics and Transformational Leadership Another research by Felix et al. (2016) demonstrated a positive significant relationship between organisational ethics (with cognitive moral development as a mediating variable) and transformational leadership style. The study further revealed that transformational leaders motivate and mentor their subordinates for both self and organizational benefits, unlike transactional leadership which is more insistent on performance – achieving company goals. Thus, leaders with low level moral reasoning exhibit less transformational leadership traits, and this supports the works of some earlier theorists (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Kimberling, 2008; Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Simola et al., 2010; Felix et al., 2015). Therefore, the authors argued that public leaders with higher cognitive moral development exhibit more transformational leadership behaviours, and impact more positively on subordinates’ general ethical orientation and moral behaviour in respect of organisational ethics. 36 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Furthermore, Hood (2003) undertook a study to analyse the relationship between leadership style, CEO values and ethical practices in selected organizations. The four categories of variables under consideration were individual, social, ability-based and morality-based values. Findings indicated transformational leadership was significantly related to all four types of values, including morality-based, social, personal, and competency-based values. The study further established that transformational leadership was positively and significantly correlated with organisational ethics. Consequently, the researcher concluded that a substantial level of change in the organisational ethics was explained by transformational leadership. Also, transformational leadership as well as social and morality-based standards had a direct relationship with organisational ethics. Thus, leaders exhibiting these traits – morality-based, social, personal, and competency-based values – are likely to foster ethical practices among employees in the organization. Therefore, groups or firms ought to take into consideration both ethics and leadership qualities exhibited by managers if they want to ensure moral standards and discourage incivility in the workplace. In a similar vein, some studies have linked the effectiveness of transformational leadership to the development of an ethical work environment as it appeals to the moral values of the individual (Singh, 2011; Paladan, 2015; Anwar, 2017; Richter et al., 2015). Likewise, Burns (1978 as cited in Bacha & Walker, 2013) observed a close association between transformational leadership style and organisational ethics. Burns (1978) explained that transforming leadership eventually becomes ethical or moral because transformational leadership rises the level of human behaviour and aspirations of the leader and the led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both of them (Simola et al., 2010). One essential function of the transformational leader is to raise employees to a higher standard of moral obligation. This distinguishes transformational leadership from several other kinds of leadership theories as there is a well-defined moral dimension (Caldwell et al., 2012; Felix et al., 2016). 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Also, in assessing the relationship between transformational leadership and organisational ethics, previous studies have revealed that for employees to be ready to yield to organisational ethical behaviour, there is the critical role of the context (Ete et al., 2020; Avolio et al., 2014; Sosik & Cameron, 2010), including the style of leadership (Lee et al., 2017). In particular, transformational leadership has been highlighted as a crucial precursor of ‘readiness-to- change-related’ behavioural outcomes (Farahnak et al.2020; Metwally et al., 2019; Chaudhry, 2013). Lee et al. (2017), for example, argued that ethics-rooted leadership approaches like authentic and ethical leadership demonstrate correlations akin to transformational leadership with various positive employee outcomes including self-concept, confidence in supervisor, work engagement and job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2019; Sosik & Cameron, 2010; Lee et al., 2017). Accordingly, transformational leadership has been recognized as the most effective in giving important understanding of how leaders can impact their subordinates because it primarily aims at increasing awareness in subordinates of what the organisation deems morally right and important (Bass, 1985 as cited in Muenjohn, 2010). This assertion implies that transformational leaders might promote employee adherence to organisational ethics through awareness creation. More so, according to the research by Keskes (2014 as cited in Malik et al., 2017), it was established that transformational leadership style is important since it has a significant influence on the business ethics or attitudes and behaviours – such as mutual trust and respect – of followers. Notwithstanding, Floyd (2010) examined whether there is a relationship between leadership styles in higher education and organisational ethics, and whether the institutionalization of ethics is related to a more ethical work climate. Findings of the research revealed that there are significantly positive correlations between transformational leadership and both implicit and explicit forms of organisational ethics. Using the results as basis, the study concluded, among 38 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh other things, that there is a significant relationship between transformational leaders and implicit forms of ethics institutionalization. Moreover, the role of leadership style was seen to be strongly related to the establishment and implementation of an ethical work climate via the institutionalization of organisational ethics. 2.2.4 Leadership Style and Workplace Incivility Studies suggest that leadership styles at the management level could be linked with behavioural incivility in the workplace. In view of that, Lee and Jensen (2014) found that positive leadership styles (e.g., constructive) are related to reduced levels of workplace incivility. Hence, there is evidence in literature demonstrating that there is significant relationship between leadership style – transformational and transactional – and workplace incivility. For example, Bureau, Gagné, Morin, and Mageau (2021) conducted a study to examine the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related acts of incivility. Witnessing workplace incivility was also hypothesized to negatively predict employee need satisfaction. Data were collected from production employees in different Canadian plants of a major manufacturing company using a sample of 344 employees. This was a longitudinal research design involving a two- wave data collection with a 1-year time lag. Multilevel correlation analyses showed significant associations between transformational leadership, incivility, and need satisfaction for cross- sectional and longitudinal correlations respectively. In terms of predictive relationships, group- level (L2) results indicated that transformational leadership negatively predicted observing both person-and work-related forms of incivility respectively. In line with cross-sectional results obtained in previous studies by Vasconcelos (2020), the study by Bureau et al. (2021) established a negative correlation between transformational leadership and workplace incivility. Furthermore, the findings suggested that decreased levels of workplace incivility are among the good effects of transformational leadership. “Given that 39 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh transformational leadership has been shown to be particularly beneficial in times of crisis because of its capacity to ‘repair’ bonds between employees, managers, and the organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006), our results suggest that training managers to engage in transformational leadership could prevent or curtail incivility in the workplace” (Bureau et al., 2021, NP467). In conclusion, the authors postulated that these longitudinal findings build upon previous literature by identifying transformational leadership style as a potential managerial strategy to reduce incivility in workgroups over time. The authors added that mere exposure to workplace misbehaviour still affects employees’ adjustment, with negative outcomes for both the individual and the organisation, implying that every strategy to reduce deviance “by demonstrating the risks posed by incivility” in workplaces is worthwhile (Bureau et al., 2021). Kaiser, (2017) also examined the relationship between leadership style and workplace incivility among nurses in Michigan. A survey was used to measure the perceived levels of incivility and the leadership styles experienced by 237 respondents. Results found that transformational leadership style had the strongest correlation with low levels of incivility. Among three others leadership styles, transactional leadership was found to be the most prevalent style of leadership and transformational leadership, the least common. Regression analysis revealed that the transformational leadership most significantly minimized the level of incivility. Not only did this relationship have the highest correlation coefficient but high levels of transformational style were comparatively related to the lowest mean levels of incivility. Also, a lack of statistical correlation was found between transactional leader behaviours and workplace incivility. Based on the findings, Kaiser (2017) stated that leadership style is not a definitive factor of incivility, but leader behaviours influence the level of incivility between staff nurses. The researcher further indicated that since workplace incivility is prevalent, it is essential to identify best practices to prepare and support leaders to recognise and employ the appropriate behaviours – a multi-factorial approach – needed to address this critical issue. In 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh light of the above, (Freeman et al., 2019) also conducted a study and found that transformational leadership decreased workplace incivility and physical intimidation. Moreover, there is evidence in literature (e.g. Walsh et al., 2018; Lee & Jensen, 2014; Laschinger et al., 2014) suggesting that leadership holds the key to curbing incivility in the work environment, and has the power to make organizational changes in the status quo. This is because supervisors have been identified as having a pivotal role to play in either instigating or reducing workplace incivility or bullying (Saima et al., 2020). The findings of Ahmad et al. (2020) are in keeping with previous research in which Trépanier et al. (2016) reviewed 12 articles and found that leadership style was one of the four main categories of work-related antecedents of workplace incivility in the form of bullying. The underlying philosophy is that peoples who are in positions of authority are mostly identified as instigators of uncivil acts such as bullying (Hoel & Salin, 2003). Supporting this assertion, it has been reported that about forty percent of employees who experienced workplace acts of incivility such as bullying point at their immediate managers as the leading perpetrators (Johnson & Rea, 2009; Tre´panier et al., 2013a). Furthermore, Trépanier et al. (2016) observed that even if organisational leaders are not the perpetrators themselves, they have nevertheless been identified as major factors in workplace incivility. This view is based on the premise that because positive leadership styles (such as transformational leadership) signify explicit communication and collaboration, they are likely to prevent bullying as a form of incivility. Furthermore, (Ågotnes et al., 2021) combined employees’ daily experiences of work pressure examined the relationship between employees’ daily experiences of incivility (e.g. bullying) and transformational leadership. Specifically, the authors hypothesized that daily transformational leadership behaviour moderates the positive relationship between daily work pressure and daily exposure to acts of incivility among naval cadet officers. Contrary to predictions, the study found a non-significant interaction between daily work pressure and daily 41 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh transformational leadership on daily exposure to workplace incivility. Nielsen (2013) investigated how leadership styles are related to the occurrence of acts of incivility such as bullying in work groups in Norway. It was hypothesized, among other things, that transformational leadership is negatively related to workplace bullying. The findings indicated higher levels of transformational leadership relating to reduced risk of experiencing bullying behaviours. This result provides support for earlier findings in literature that transformational leadership has a negative relationship with the occurrence of workplace incivility (Bureau et al., 2021a). Nevertheless, Cemaloğlu (2011) undertook research to assess the relationships between principals of selected basic schools leadership behaviours and organizational health and incivility in the form of bullying. The research found no substantial correlation between transactional leadership behaviour of principals and workplace incivility (bullying). However, a significantly negative relationship was found between the principals’ transformational leadership style and workplace incivility (bullying). Consequently, the author observed that due to transformational leadership acts of principals such as motivation, effective communication, participatory decision-making processes, etc, workplace incivility among teachers barely occurred in educational organizations in Turkey. This implies that leaders (principals) who create a negative work environment contribute to workplace incivility in organizations. 2.2.5 Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility According to Quierrez (2020), organisational ethics plays an integral part in the management of an organization, leading to long-term success and stability both for the employees and the organization as well. Ethics plays a pivotal role in business because it involves the utilization of professionalism in dealing with core values and moral problems that usually cut across all organisational settings; and applies to all aspects of individual conduct and of the entire 42 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh organization (Fahie & Dunne, 2021; Morrow et al., 2011; Ruiz-Alba & Munoz, 2020; DeConinck, 2015; Alderson & Morrow, 2020). It has been argued that companies who are committed to promoting ethics in the workplace enjoy unique benefits in the marketplace, including attracting personnel as well as retaining existing and potential future customers (Jalil et al., 2010). Furthermore, such organisational ethics controls the increase, if not eliminates, distractions among employees. Subsequently, employees in an ethics-guided company feel satisfied in the work where they are engaged, which further results in transforming them into productive individuals geared toward the overall success of their company (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Quierrez (2020) conducted a study to investigate the impact of organisational ethics on the behaviour and work productivity of employees in various types of organisations. Findings demonstrated significant positive correlation between firms’ ethics and civil behaviour of workers and performance resulting in high productivity. The study also highlighted respondents’ perception that financial consideration is just a secondary matter when choosing a company to work with. Instead, employees look up to management, specifically their superiors as models who will set the moral tone on how a particular organization will operate its day-to-day transactions. As a result, Quierrez (2020) concluded that ethics is the fundamental consideration of the employees’ moral decision on whether a particular action is right or wrong (in respect of workplace incivility). It follows that whatever course of action individual employees perceive as rightful or wrongful ultimately influences the organization’s culture that would lead the organization to its success or failure and further damage its reputation (Quierrez, 2020). Similarly, Robinson (2006 as cited in Hodkinson, 2009) reported that more than seventy percent of student respondents in his survey said that they (respondents) consider the ethical track record of a company as a critical factor when selecting their employer. Segon and Booth (2013) and Payne (2007) stated that when there is a culture of unethical 43 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh practices or incivility in the workplace, this will reflect on the values, attitudes, belief, and language which presents what business culture exists in an organization (Wang et al., 2018). Furthermore, Estes and Wang (2008) established that ethics or norms, which find expression in organizational culture may provide a practical explanation relating to the causes of workplace incivility because culture can either reject or embrace incivility. Lim and Cortina (2005 as cited in Ghosh, 2017) also found evidence to the effect that whether an organization’s cultural norms for co-worker treatment are consistent with a strong sub-culture among employees or not, such norms could still be considered incivility if they (norms) allow for a climate of general workplace impudence. According to Moon and Sánchez‐Rodríguez (2020), at least the norms may be considered uncivil by some workers who, for example, have personal expectations of respect, privacy, and trust among co-workers, due to individual cultural orientations. It was further argued that these norms may be inconsistent with the organisation’s management philosophy and thus carefully concealed from management’s attention (Moon & Sánchez‐Rodríguez, 2020; Beis, 2011). In another study, Pearson and Porath (2004 as cited in Estes & and Wang, 2008) reported that less 50% of the respondents in a survey expected their company to be sensitive to workplace incivility, while 80% stated that they expected rebukes or career restrictions to be meted out to perpetrators of various forms of incivility such as sexual harassment, overt threats, and physical attacks within the firm. The implication is that organisational ethics has a significant impact on workplace incivility. Also, existing literature has associated the perception of workplace ethical norms with certain behaviours of employees. For example, Kott (2012) examined the role of ethics in employee behaviour in the workplace. It was hypothesized that individual ethical relativism will serve as a moderator in the relationship between perceived organisational ethics and the presence of counterproductive work behaviour (including workplace incivility). However, the study findings were inconsistent with the view organisational ethics influence personnel behaviour 44 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh in the workplace. Yet, additional analysis on unexpected relationships revealed that agreeableness showed a significant negative relationship with counterproductive work behaviours such as incivility (t = -2.357, p < .05). This result implies that organisations with reduced incidence of workplace incivility among employees are likely to produce a favourable work environment. Similarly, Tamunomiebi & Ukwuije (2021) studied the relationship between workplace incivility and counterproductive behaviours in organisational settings. Based on their research findings, the authors averred that workplace incivility and counterproductive work behaviour or outcomes have a significant nexus. A significant negative relationship was also found between workplace incivility and organisational culture of ethics. Tamunomiebi & Ukwuije (2021) concluded on the note that organizations must act in a proactive manner in managing incivility so that it does not degenerate into serious and corrosive consequences that eat away the workplace culture by promoting well-being in the workplace and preventing certain unsafe dynamics from establishing themselves. Nonetheless, Adu-Brobbey and Ohemeng (2017 as cited in Nkansah-Sarkodie, 2019) assessed the problem of workplace incivility – in the light of organisational ethics – and its impact on performance from selected public and private organizations in Ghana. It became evident that while some organizations do not have rules or code of ethics to address uncivilized behaviours, others do not handle victims of such behaviours properly. Subsequently, it was found that employees were highly demoralized as a result of such uncivil behaviours, leading to hindrance in free flow of communication, low performance and a high turnover rate for these organizations. Therefore, the authors proposed that in order to ameliorate the negative effects of uncivil behaviours, management should adhere to the established rules and regulations, or establish organisational ethics where none already exists. Adu-Brobbey and Ohemeng (2017) further argued that management should endeavour to settle issues on workplace incivility 45 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh appropriately so as to guard employees from exhibiting such negative behaviours within the organisation. Corroborating the role of organisational ethics in the face of workplace incivility, Paliwal (2006 cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019) stresses that ethics is a rule that applies to everybody employed in the organizational set-up regardless of position, level of responsibility, and range of responsibilities. As Drucker (1981, cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019) states, ethics is non- negotiable, there is one ethics. There are morality rules and ethical behaviour code that applies to all people alike. Ethical behaviour and undertakings relate to actions, which are determined by “honesty, integrity, morality and good management practices” (Paliwal, 2006, p.4 as cited in Grigoropoulos, 2019), while producing returns for the company. In addition, (Phillips et al., 2018) studied the relationship between organisational ethics, spirituality and workplace incivility. Specifically, the study examined organisational ethics and spirituality for possible ways to build and sustain civil environments in nursing workplaces. The findings presented evidence to confirm that incivility offers examples of workplace mistreatment that damages the ethical climate of an organization (Lachman, 2014, cited in Itzkovich & Dolev, 2017). However, Phillips et al., (2018) failed to establish whether there is a causal relationship between ethics and spirituality and decreased negative behaviours. Nonetheless, workplace support and relationships were shown to have an association with the cause of and solution to negative outcomes of workplace incivility. The study also revealed that employees who are given precise policies and regulations on organisational ethics to follow and are held responsible for compliance would be less likely to perpetrate incivility in the work environment (Phillips et al., 2018). In conclusion, the authors stated that professionalism in the workplace hinges on strong organisational ethics – founded on morals given by God – and is paramount in dealing with any form of workplace incivility, thereby promoting civil behaviours. 46 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.3 Conceptual Framework Figure 1: leadership style as a mediator between organizational ethics and workplace incivility This study makes use of transformational and transactional, organizational ethics and workplace incivility theories. The transformational and transactional theories were developed by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985 as cited in Brown et al., 2019). Also, the adopted theory for leadership style, organizational ethics and workplace incivility was the Social Learning Theory, proposed by (Bandura & Hall, 2018). Rooted in the theoretical and empirical literature in discussion, a conceptual framework was developed. Figure 1 illustrates that there is a relationship between (transformational and transactional) leadership style and workplace incivility. Similarly, there is a relationship between (transformational and transactional) leadership style and organizational ethics. Finally, the framework illustrates that both organizational ethics and workplace incivility influence each other. 47 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction This chapter essentially describes the methods, procedures and techniques the researcher employed to collect the data needed to achieve the study objective. Saunders et al. (2018) observed that research is carried out with the intent of finding out things in a systematic or methodical manner, thus increasing knowledge. Hence, social research is grounded on logical relationships and not just beliefs (Ghauri & Gronhaug, 2005 as cited in Ragab & Arisha, 2018; Saunders et al., 2018). Also, this chapter highlights the research design, sources of data, target population, sample size, sampling procedure, data collection instruments and subsequently the data analysis procedure. 3.1 Research Design MacMillan and Schumacher (2001 as cited in Ngozwana, 2018) define research design as a plan for choosing subjects, study locations, and data collection techniques to respond to the questions for the research. In addition, the authors emphasize that the aim of a comprehensive study design is to produce dependable outcomes. According to Durrheim (2006) research design is a strategic framework for action that serves as a bridge between research questions and the execution or implementation of the research strategy. Hence, this study adopted the cross-sectional survey research design. A cross-sectional survey produces a ‘snapshot’ of a population at a particular point in time; where the researcher subsequently observes variables without influencing them (Thomas & Lawal, 2020). Hence, the cross-sectional survey design has been employed for the current research as it enables the researcher to gather data while making the research relatively less expensive in terms of cost and time. 48 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Methodology According to Denzin et al. (2017), the philosophical notion a researcher has about a particular social phenomenon underscores the methods and techniques he employs and also the nature of the research problem being investigated. Therefore, this study is based on the quantitative method, which encompasses the collection and analysis of quantitative data (Palinkas et al., 2015, 2019). Due to its quantitative nature, the current study falls under the category of positivist philosophy. Positivism relates to quantitative research which involves the collection and analyses of numerical data (Sukamolson, 2007 as cited in Apuke, 2017). Hence, this philosophy or paradigm formed the foundation upon which the researcher analysed statistical data, interpreted and drew conclusions for this study. The researcher used quantitative approach due to its accuracy and objectivity. It relies on concrete numbers and fewer variables. This can help to remove biases from the research and make the findings more accurate. Another advantage is that it is easier to obtain large a sample size for the study. 3.2 Source of Data The researcher made use of both primary and secondary data. Mesly (2015 as cited in Ajayi, 2017) refers to primary data as facts and figures (data) gathered from the real location where the actions occurred for study purposes, where the researcher is the first person to obtain the data. Primary data was collected from non-managerial workers and middle level staff respondents within the target population. This was done by means of structured, closed-ended questionnaire. Also, the researcher made use of secondary information through the review of relevant literature from published articles, books, journals and online sources. 3.3 The Research Population Target population refers to the group of individuals respondents who have the particular traits of interest that are significant to the research (Bartlett et al., 2001 as cited in Asiamah et al., 2017; Creswell, 2003 as cited in Asiamah et al., 2017). However, the population of a study 49 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh may be described as the number of all the elements of the construct to be examined that are present in the location of the research (Kumekpor, 2002 cited in Ofosu-Boateng, 2020). Hence, the population of this study was employees of MTN Ghana in the Greater Accra region, the reason being that available statistics indicate that more than 60% of the company’s employees are concentrated in Accra alone. This means that the sample taken from Accra provides a fair representation of the employees across the country. However, the target population was the non-managerial staff employees at the headquarters and all the branch offices in Accra. Non- managerial workers were selected for the study because they are primarily not involved in formulating policies on ethics and incivility. Also, they form the majority of the working population in the company. Hence the expectation is that this category of staff are more likely to provide candid, independent opinions or data which reflect the reality in the workplace in respect of the research variables. 3.4 Sample Size The quota one chooses out of a target population to take part in a study, and whose information can be generalized to affect that population is known as the sample (Ott & Longnecker, 2015 as cited in Wanjira & Njagiru, 2018). By means of Miller and Brewer's (2003) sample size determination criterion, the researcher computed the study sample size using the formula below: 𝑛 = 𝑁 1 + 𝑁 (∝2). Given that: n = the sample size, 1= constant, N= target population, ∝= error margin expressed as a proportion of 5%. The target population was 1270 employees. Therefore, the researcher computed the proportionate sample size as follows: 𝑛 = 700 = 700 = 254.55 1 + 700 (0.052) 2.75 50 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Therefore, the sample size derived after computation was 254.55, which was rounded up to 255 employees. Accordingly, 255 questionnaires were administered to respondents and the researcher was able to retrieve 216 from the respondents. However, 7 questionnaires out of the number received were rejected because they were not properly completed, bringing the total number of valid completed questionnaires to 209. As a result, the response rate for this study was 84.7%. According to Babbie (1989 as cited in James & George, 2018), a reply rate of not less than fifty percent is sufficient, sixty percent is good, seventy percent is very good whereas ninety percent is ideal when used for analysing and writing in a survey. 3.5 Sampling Procedure According to Sekaran and Bougie (2010 as cited in Khalid, Abdullah, & Kumar M, 2012), sampling as the process of selecting an sufficient number of objects of interest from the population, so that an assessment of the sample and an appreciation of its features could be generalized to the elements of the population. Stratified random sampling technique was employed by the researcher to choose personnel from the different branches of the organisation. This was done to ensure that all the members of the target population would have a fair representation. Subsequently, the researcher used simple random sampling lottery method for selecting participants from each stratum. In this method, the researcher randomly picked numbers, and assigned each number to correspond to a participant and those numbers were then used to identify or select the respondents. To guarantee a fair and well-balanced chance(s) for all elements of the population, the researcher ensured that the numbers were well mixed up before selecting the samples. The essence of using this method was to avoid research bias by giving every employee an equal chance of being chosen for the study. 3.6 Research Instrument The researcher used questionnaire as the main instrument to gather data for the research. Sekaran and Bougie (2010 as cited in Khalid et al., 2012) portend that provided the researcher 51 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh has identified precisely what is necessary and how to measure the variables of interest, questionnaire is an efficient data gathering tool. Essentially, the questionnaire was the closed- ended type, consisting of five sections. Section ‘A’ involved the respondents’ demographics which include sex or gender, age (in years), education background, length of service, as well as employment status/type. Sections ‘B’ and ‘C’ asked participants to express their observations on leadership styles (transformational and transactional) while section D sought participants’ opinions on organisational ethics. Lastly, section ‘E’ asked for the views of respondents on their attitude towards workplace incivility. Avolio and Bass' (2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was employed by the researcher to assess supervisors’ leadership styles. The questionnaire entails 46 constructs or items. 31 of the constructs assess transformational leadership and consist of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation as well as individualized consideration. The remaining 15 examine transactional leadership, which include contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive). Then a 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the constructs, which ranges from (1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree). Examples of the items are: “My manager goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group”, “My manager instils pride in me for being associated with him”, and “My manager demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action”. Furthermore, a 9-item questionnaire was developed to assess organisational ethics by means of the 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree). Some of the items include: “It is okay for a supervisor to ask an employee to support someone else’s incorrect view point”, “Profit should be given a higher priority than the safety of a product”, and “There is nothing wrong with a supervisor asking an employee to falsify a document”. Lastly, the researcher used a 14-item workplace incivility questionnaire (WIQ) to measure incivility in the workplace. This was graded using the 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Quite Often 5 = Very Often). The sample items for workplace incivility include: “How often have you exhibited the following behaviours in the past year to someone in the workplace? ….” “Put down others or were condescending to them 52 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh in some way”, “Made demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about someone” and “Made ethnic, religious or racial remarks or joke at work”. 3.7 Reliability Test Analysis The researcher conducted a reliability test to determine the internal consistency of the scale used to measure each of the study variables. By definition, reliability refers to the consistency of the measure of a construct in a study whilst validity is the degree to which the marks from a measure represent the variable for which they are intended (Petty et al., 2019 cited in Luttrell et al., 2019). Sekaran (2000 as cited in Hasan et al., 2020) suggests that the only means by which the reliability of a construct could be measured is to do the testing for consistency and stability. Consistency refers to the degree to which the items assessing a particular concept “hang” together as a set. Also, Pallant (2005 cited in Zain et al., 2020) assert that it is imperative to make use of valid and reliable measurement scales which are consistent within. As a result, some scholars (e.g. Sekaran, 2000; Gliem & Calculating, 2003) suggest the use of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in checking how consistent a scale is. Therefore, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient values obtained for the current research are as follows: Table 3.1 Construct Reliability Test Variable Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items Valid Cases Transformational Leadership .931 31 209 Transactional Leadership .957 15 209 Organisational Ethics .894 9 209 Workplace Incivility .883 14 209 Source: Author’s field work, 2021 53 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Sekaran (2003 as cited in Aigbogun et al., 2017) postulate that the consistencies or reliabilities within the limit of +.70 are satisfactory and those having coefficient values above +0.80 are deemed to be good. However, reliabilities having values below .60 are deemed unacceptable. As a result, table 3.1 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.93 and 0.96 representing transformational and transactional leaderships respectively demonstrate acceptable reliability for the measurement constructs. Also, 0.89 value for organisational ethics (OE) is an indication of good reliability. Lastly, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.88 for workplace incivility (WI) shows a good reliability. Therefore, the measurement variable scales used for the study demonstrated good reliability. 3.8 Data Collection Management In line with standard practice and formal procedure, the researcher obtained letter of introduction from the Departmental Head, Department of Organization and Human Resource Management (OHRM), University of Ghana Business School (UGBS). Then the researcher personally delivered the letter to the Headquarters (Head Office) and subsequently to various branch offices of MTN Ghana where the survey was going to conducted. Following official approval from the Head office, the researcher proceeded and self-administered the questionnaires to get employees respond to them. 3.9 Data Analysis According to Qureshi et al. (2016), raw data has the latent ability to transform entire organisations globally but it is meaningless until the data is analysed or converted to meaningful information to aid in decision-making processes. Hence, the researcher thoroughly studied the data obtained from the field in order to detect potential errors and omissions that may have occurred. The reason was to ensure consistency across the responses. Subsequently, the questionnaires received were coded by assigning numerical values and then analysed using 54 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 and later imported to SmartPLS for further analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to examine the participants’ demographic data. (Pallant 2001 cited in Yang et al., 2010) observed that descriptive statistics describes the features of any study sample by providing statistical summary like the mean, median, and standard deviation for continuous constructs or variables. The descriptive statistics also provides frequencies on the number of participants who responded to each categorical variable. Data analysis, normality test, reliability test and correlation analysis were conducted by means of SPSS to evaluate the impact of leadership behaviours on the attitude of workers towards organisational ethics and workplace incivility. The researcher, by means of the SEM analysis, also sought to establish a linear relationship between each of the mediator (independent) variables and the dependent variable. The researcher further determined the normality of data for the study so as to find out kind of statistical tests to be used (i.e. parametric or non-parametric). Hypothesis was tested with the Structural Equation Model (SEM) in SmartPLS in order to establish the relationships between the independent variables and the distinct influence the mediator (leadership style) exerts on the dependent variable (Pallant, 2011). The researcher used SmartPLS because, according to Sander and Teh (2014), it (SmartPLS) is a one-stop, comprehensive and flexible tool that can be used to test and analyse both relatively large and small data samples. “The flexibility of the SmartPLS software and less restricted rules enables [research] scientists to explore causal mechanism with small samples and undistributed data” (Sander & Teh, 2014, p. 357). Again, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), there are a number of criteria or conditions to be satisfied before one can successfully test the mediating effect of a variable. Accordingly, a three-distinct regression estimation was proposed as follows: Model 1 – regressing the mediator on the independent variable; Model 2 – regressing the dependent variable on the 55 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh independent variable Model 3 – regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. Meanwhile, there are four requirements for mediation involving this technique which are that: (i) the predictor variable must significantly predict the mediator in Model 1; (2) the predictor variable must significantly predict the outcome of the variable in Model 2; (iii) the mediator must significantly predict the outcome variable in Model 3, and (iv) the predictor variable must predict the outcome variable less strongly in Model 3 than in Model 1 (i.e. partial mediation). However, full mediation is said to have happened when the predictor variable turns out to be insignificant in the third model (i.e. Model 3). Nevertheless, PLS-SEM afforded the researcher the opportunity to test for the mediation (indirect) effect between the independent and dependent variables without first testing the direct effects independently and separately as in the case of SPSS. This makes the model not only comprehensive but convenient, hence the choice of it for the current research. 3.10 Ethical issues In line with best practices and ethical standards, the researcher obtained the permission and subsequent approval of the firm – MTN Ghana before embarking on the study. Besides, the researcher sought permission from individual respondents prior to the issuance of the questionnaires to them. The reason was to enable employees answer the questionnaire on their own volition. In addition, the ethical issues of confidentiality and privacy were taken into consideration. Babbie and Mouton (2001 as cited in Olaniran & Baruwa, 2020) assert that in order to safeguard privacy, the researcher must ensure that respondents’ personal details like their location addresses and names are not featured on the survey forms (questionnaires). This confidentiality requirement was fulfilled by asking participants to maintain anonymity. Thus, they should not write their names or other personal information on the questionnaire. 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 4.0 Introduction This chapter highlights the presentation, interpretation and analysis of research findings in view of the empirical review that was done in order to evaluate each hypothesis. 4.1 Demographic Features of Participants For this research’s purposes, frequencies and percentages of the respondents’ features such as gender, age, educational background, years of service/experience in the organisation, and employment type were taken into consideration. Details of these characteristic variables are outlined below in the table below. 57 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.1 Demographic Features of Respondents Profile Variable Frequency Percentage Male 112 53.6 Gender Female 97 46.4 Total 209 100.0 20-29 68 32.5 30-39 75 35.9 Age (Years) 40-49 56 26.8 50-59 10 4.8 Total 209 100.0 SHS 33 15.8 Degree 140 67.0 Education background Master’s 36 17.2 Total 209 100.0 1-3 years 97 46.4 4-7 years 48 23.0 Years of Service 8-11 years 42 20.1 11+ years 22 10.5 Total 209 100.0 Permanent 109 52.2 Temporary 28 13.4 Employment type Contract 72 34.4 Total 209 100.0 Source: Author’s field work, 2021 Table 4.1 above demonstrates that 112 from a total of 209 participants which represents 53.6% of them are males while the remainder of 46.4% constitute females. This implies that majority of the company’s employees are predominantly males. With respect to their ages, it is clear from the above table (4.1) that most participants were aged between 30-39 which amounts to 58 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35.9%. In all, a larger majority of the participants could be described as youth whose ages range from 20 to 39 years (i.e. 143 respondents making 68.4%), whereas the rest (31.6%) are aged 40 years and above. This result indicates that there is a good mix of experience and energy within the firm. Considering the fact that 68 respondents (32.5%) are between the ages of 20- 29, the supposition is that the MTN Ghana Company employs a significant number of youthful graduates. That is a laudable effort as the decision to employ more young graduates will ultimately reduce the increasing rate of youth unemployment the country is currently facing. Moreover, table 4.1 shows that 140 of the participants constituting 67.0% had first degree certificates. Then 36 participants making 17.2% held Master’s degrees whilst the remaining 33 translating into 15.8% were SHS certificates (WASSCE/SSSCE) holders. Therefore, most participants holding University degrees could be due to the fact that the firm deliberately engages the services of a greater number of labour force who are highly skilled. Also, it is evident from table 4.1 that 97 employees translating into 46.4% have been working with MTN Ghana for 1-3 years. 48 participants, signifying 23.0%, have been engaged from 4- 7 years. Another 42 employees, signifying 20.1% have been working for 8-11 years whereas 22 respondents signifying 10.5% have been working for over 11 years. In cumulative terms, 64 participants signifying 30.6% have been working up to 11 years or more in the telecommunication company. The implication is that a significant number of the workers have gained vast working experience and this could enhance the smooth running of operations in the organisation. Additionally, table 4.1 illustrates that 109 of the participants which constitutes 52.2% had permanent employment status. Another 72 respondents, which represents 34.4% of them were contract staff and 28, signifying 13.4% had been engaged on temporary basis. With over fifty percent majority of the respondents having permanent employment status or type, it can be deduced that most employees of MTN Ghana have relatively permanent employment, which could be interpreted as those employees having job security of some sort. 59 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2 Preliminary Analysis 4.2.1 Normality Test Analysis A normality test is a statistical test conducted to determine whether sample data has been drawn from a normally distributed population. McCarthy et al. (2019) portend that the assumption of normality is important as it could be used to predict whether correct statistical tests have been employed in data analysis. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (1996 as cited in ÇINAR, 2019) the data normality is obtained if the kurtosis and skewness values fall within the range of -2 and +2. Table 4.2 below shows the skewness and kurtosis for the research variables. Table 4.2: Normality Test Data Analysis Mean Std. Skewness Kurtosis Deviation Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Statistic Std. Error Error Organisational Ethics 1.90 .959 1.111 .168 .312 .335 Workplace Incivility 1.77 .595 1.577 .169 1.908 .337 Transformational 3.42 .534 -1.165 .168 1.615 .335 Leadership Transactional 2.29 1.085 .710 .168 -.527 .335 Leadership Source: Field survey, 2021 N = 209 As indicated in table 4.2 above, all the skewness and kurtosis values for the constructs are between the acceptable range for skewness and kurtosis with the least and highest figures being -1.165 and 1.908 for the two measures respectively. Hence, all the variables that the researcher used were normally distributed in terms of skewness and kurtosis. This therefore makes the data fit for further analysis. 60 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.3 Structural Equation Model (SEM) Analysis Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a powerful, multivariate technique used to test and evaluate multivariate causal and structural relationships. According to (Kline 2005 as cited in Zeynivandnezhad et al., 2019), this technique is the amalgamation of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, and it is expedient to use in examining the structural relationships between measured constructs as well as hidden variables. This model is preferred by the researcher because it estimates the multiple and interrelated dependence in a single analysis. There are two types of models under the SEM as identified and utilized below. 4.3.1 Measurement Model The measurement model represents the theory that specifies how measured variables come together to represent the concept under analysis. All the measurement items loaded unto model should be either .7 or above (Hair et al., 2019 cited in Purwanto, 2021); Sarstedt et al., 2018, cited in Cheah et al., 2018). As a result, the items loadings which did not meet the threshold weight of .7 and above were deleted. The standardised items were then loaded on the model as depicted below: 61 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 2: The CFA Model Measurement with Standardised Item Loadings Source: Author’s field work, 2021 4.3.2 Validation of Measurement Module Table 4.3 Measurement Model Validation Measurement Module Scale Estimated Model Standard Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) 0.086 Normal Fit Index (NFI) 0.675 With reference to table 4.3, (Bentler and Bonett 1980 cited in Convertino et al., 2019) posit that for the model to be considered as fit for purpose, the SRMR value should be less than 0.08. When the value is less than 0.08, the model is said to be excellent and if the SRMR value falls 62 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh between the range of 0.08 and 1, then it is acceptable. For the NFI, the criterion is that when the value is less than 0.7, it is an excellent value; and the acceptable limit is within the range of 0.7 and 1. As highlighted in table 4.3, the estimated model values for the SRMR (0.086) and NFI (0.675) can be said to be acceptable and excellent respectively and therefore the model is fit. It is noteworthy that the researcher did not use the Chi-square because it is basically used in analysing very large data. Therefore, since the sample size is relatively small (209), the SRMR and NFI values, which are ideal for not-too-large data sets, were preferred for this analysis. 4.3.3 Validity Test Validity refers to the extent to which the scores from a measure or construct represents the variable they are intended to (Petty et al., 2019 cited in Fabrigar et al., 2020). Research has established that there are two types of validity: (1) Convergent validity and (2) Discriminant validity. Convergent validity describes the situation where two or more different constructs come together to measure the one particular variable. According to (Hair et al., 2017) when the average variance extracted value is 0.5 and above, then the items within the construct have convergent validity. Discriminant validity, on the other hand, enables the researcher to find out whether two or more items come together to measure different concepts. This is to avoid the situation where the different variables are seen to be measuring the same construct. Thus it is expected that different variables should measure different constructs. To test discriminant validity, the researcher used the Fornell-Larker approach which provides the criterion that the validity of a construct should measure at least 0.7. From table 4.4 below, it is evident that all the constructs i.e. Organisational Ethics (0.731), Transactional Leadership (0.805), Transformational 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Leadership (0.725) and Workplace Incivility (0.718) had measurement values greater than 0.7. Hence discriminant validity has been achieved. Table 4.4 Fornell-Larker Criterion for Discriminant Validity Analysis Fornell-Larker Criterion OE Transactional L Transformational L WI OE 0.731 Transactional L 0.407 0.805 Transformational L -0.272 -0.308 0.725 WI 0.583 0.483 -0.251 0.718 4.3.4 Correlation Analysis According to James (2020 cited in Wegner et al., 2020), correlation analysis is a statistical technique used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables or datasets, and how strong or significant that relationship is. It also points out whether such a relationship is positive or negative. The table below shows the results of the correlation matrix representing variables used for the current research. 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.5 The Pearson’s Correlation Matrix of the Research Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pearson 1 Correlation Gender Sig. (2- tailed) N 209 Pearson -.235** 1 Correlation Age Sig. (2- .001 tailed) N 209 209 Pearson .101 -.161* 1 Correlation OE Sig. (2- .146 .020 tailed) N 209 209 209 Pearson .008 -.019 .553** 1 Correlation Workplace Incivility Sig. (2- .904 .786 .000 tailed) N 207 207 207 207 Pearson .026 -.005 -.008 .006 1 Correlation Transformational Sig. (2- Leadership .706 .945 .910 .929 tailed) N 209 209 209 207 209 Pearson -.042 -.117 -.390** -.474** -.073 1 Correlation Transactional Leadership Sig. (2- .544 .092 .000 .000 .296 tailed) N 209 209 209 207 209 209 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). From table 4.5, it can be observed that a strong relationship exists between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. The correlation co-efficient of .553** which is at 1% level of significance (2- tailed) suggests that the two variables are strongly related. Similarly, There is a moderate correlation 65 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh of -.390** between transactional leadership and organisational ethics. Then there is another negative correlation of -.474** between transactional leadership and workplace incivility. Also, from table 4.5, there is no multicollinearity effect as each of the correlation co-efficient values between the measurement variables is less than 0.9. Multicollinearity occurs when the correlation between two variables is 0.9 and above. Hence, the assumption of multicollinearity has not been flouted by the researcher. 4.3.5 Structural Model Analysis / Interpretation The structural model represents the theory that shows how constructs are related to other constructs. With reference to the CFA Measurement Model in Figure 1 above, the R2 values of the measurement variables yielded a value of 0.461 impact on the dependent variable, workplace incivility (WI). This implies that the three independent variables (organisational ethics, transactional leadership and transformational leadership) account for 41.6% change in workplace incivility. Also, considering the original sample values from table 4.6 below, it is recognizable that organisational ethics (OE) has a positive impact of 0.407 on transactional leadership and 0.456 on workplace incivility (WI) and they are both significant, judging from the P-value of 0.00. However, OE has a negative effect of -0.272 on Transformational leadership, which is also significant. Transactional leadership also has a significant negative impact of -0.285 on WI whereas transformational leadership has a negative impact of -0.037 on WI but it is not significant based on the corresponding P-value of 0.560. Furthermore, the indirect effect of OE through transformational leadership onto WI yielded a positive value of 0.08 and is not significant at 0.687 (p-value). Meanwhile, OE had a positive indirect effect through transactional leadership on WI with original sample value of 0.116 which is also significant at P-value of 0.001. Again, it is important to note that the results demonstrate a direct significant positive relationship between organisational ethics and 66 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh workplace incivility, and an indirect significant positive relationship with same involving transactional leadership. This indicates that transactional leadership partially mediates the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Table 4.6 Bootstrapping results Original Sample Standard Deviation T Statistics P Sample (O) Mean (M) (STDEV) (|O/STDEV|) Values OE -> Transactional L 0.407 0.411 0.062 6.61 0.000 OE -> Transformational L -0.272 -0.292 0.068 3.981 0.000 OE -> WI 0.456 0.456 0.073 6.278 0.000 Transactional L - > WI -0.285 0.288 0.065 4.389 0.000 Transformational L -> WI 0.037 0.044 0.063 0.584 0.560 Total Indirect Effects OE -> Transactional L -> WI (Partial mediation) 0.116 0.118 0.033 3.046 0.001 OE -> Transformational L -> WI 0.008 0.011 0.021 0.403 0.687 4.4 Testing Research Hypothesis Three hypotheses were projected by the researcher and all of them were tested for in the study using SmartPLS-SEM analysis as presented in Table 4.6 above. Details of the path analysis are presented below. 4.4.1 Hypothesis One H1: There will be a significant negative relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana. The findings of the PLS-SEM from table 4.6 proved that the path from organisational ethics (OE) to workplace incivility (WI) was positive and 67 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh significant, i.e. (coefficient, β= 0.456, t-statistic = 4.389, p < 0.01). The implication here is that, this study finding did not support the hypothesis that there is a significantly negative relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana Company. The interpretation is that organisational ethics did not minimize incivility but rather had a direct proportional relationship with behavioural acts of incivility among employees in the telecommunication company. Thus behavioural incivility among employees might be explained by factors other than organisational ethics alone. 4.4.2 Hypothesis Two H2: Transformational leadership style (TRF L) will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics (OE) and workplace incivility (WI) in MTN Ghana. As shown in table 4.6 the findings of the PLS-SEM indicated that the path from OE through TRF L to WI was positive and not significant, i.e. (coefficient, β= 0.008, t-statistic = 0.403, p >0.05). Hence the results of the study did not confirm the hypothesis that transformational leadership will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees of MTN Ghana. This can be interpreted as transformational leadership did not mediate or influence the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in the organisation. 4.4.3 Hypothesis Three H3: Transactional leadership style (TRS L) will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics (OE) and workplace incivility (WI). With reference to table 4.6, the findings of the PLS-SEM proved that the path from OE through TRS L to WI was positive and significant, i.e. (coefficient, β= 0.116, t-statistic = 3.046, p ≤ 0.01). Accordingly, the results of this research confirmed the hypothesis that transactional leadership will mediate (i.e. partial mediation) the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in the organisational under study. This means that transactional leadership partially 68 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh mediates the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among MTN Ghana employees. In other words, transactional leadership exerts a significant influence to explain or enhance the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. 4.4.4 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Thus based on the Bootstrapping results (table 4.6) above and the subsequent analysis, the summary of hypothesis testing is presented in the following table. Table 4.7 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results Hypothesized Relationship Statistical result Comment OE ------→ WI Positive Effect Significant (Not confirmed) OE --→ TRF L --→ WI Positive Effect Insignificant (Not confirmed) OE --→ TRS L --→ WI Positive Effect Significant (Confirmed, Partial Mediation) 69 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTHER FIVE DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5.0 Introduction In chapter four, data gathered from respondents were presented in tables and subsequently analysed and interpreted. Consequently, the researcher discusses in detail the results of the study in this chapter. The discussions are based on the stated research objectives and in relation to the literature review. 5.1 Relationship Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility The research objective one was to examine the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. Hence, the researcher proposed the hypothesis that there will be a significant, negative relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana Company. This means organisational ethics is expected to reduce the incidence of workplace incivility among the employees in the company. However, the study findings did not support this hypothesis as the bootstrapping results from PLS-SEM analysis demonstrated a positive relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. The implication is that per the status quo, organisational ethics is not able to affect or reduce behavioural acts of incivility among employees in the telecommunication company. This finding of the study is inconsistent with existing findings in literature in which organisational ethics has a significant, negative relationship with workplace incivility. For instance, Tamunomiebi and Ukwuije (2021) found a significant negative relationship between workplace incivility and organisational culture of ethics, but this research suggests that there is a positive relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Also, Quierrez's (2020) research findings demonstrated a significant positive correlation between organisational ethics and employee civil behaviour and performance resulting in high 70 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh productivity. In other words, a negative relationship was established between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Likewise, Robinson (2006 as cited in Hodkinson, 2009) reported that more than seventy percent of student respondents in his survey asserted that they (respondents) consider the moral track record of a company as a critical factor when selecting their employer or organisation. This assertion suggests a negative relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Clearly, the current results research negate this finding in literature. It could be inferred that the employees of MTN Ghana have a different predisposition regarding their attitude towards organisational ethics and experiences of workplace incivility. However, the finding of positive relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility by the current study could be underpinned by a number of reasons or factors. One key reason may be that there is a general lack of clearly defined code of ethics that controls employee uncivil behaviour in MTN Ghana Company. For instance, Adu-Brobbey and Ohemeng (2017 as cited in Nkansah-Sarkodie, 2019) found evidence to the effect that while some organizations in Ghana lack rules or code of ethics to address workplace incivility, others do not handle victims of such behaviours properly. Therefore, Adu-Brobbey and Ohemeng (2017) proposed that in order to ameliorate the negative effects of behavioural incivility in workplaces, management should adhere to the established rules and regulations, or put in place organisational ethics where none already exists. Another factor could be probably due to the existence of weak mechanisms for enforcing organisational ethics. Phillips et al. (2018) revealed that employees who are given precise policies and regulations to follow on organisational ethics and are held responsible for compliance would be less likely to perpetrate incivility in the work environment. This revelation points to the significant role of a mediating variable such as leadership in dealing with any form of workplace incivility while promoting civil behaviours. The bottom-line is that having a form of organisational ethics is not enough. 71 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh There should be effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance leading to minimization of workplace incivility. 5.2 Transformational Leadership as a Mediator Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility Research objective two sought to examine the mediating role of transactional leadership style between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN Ghana. Hence, it was hypothesized that transformational leadership style (TRF L) will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. According to Bhandari (2020, 2021), the mediator or mediating variable helps to explain the manner in which two variables are related, especially when observing complicated causal associations between the variables. In the current study for example, leadership style – transformational and transactional – as mediators are supposed to explain how or why the independent variable (organisational ethics) affects workplace incivility, which is the dependent variable. There are two types of mediation: full mediation and partial mediation. Bhandari (2020) explains that in full mediation analysis, the mediator totally describes the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The meaning is that if the mediator is removed from the model, there can be no causal relationship. However, in the case of partial mediation, the mediator just partly explains the relationship. Thus, without the mediator in the model, there can still be a relationship between the independent and dependent statistically (Bhandari, 2020). From the current study, the findings of the PLS-SEM (table 4.6, chapter four) showed that the path from organisational ethics (OE) through TRF L to workplace incivility (WI) was positive but not significant. Thus there was no significant indirect effect between organisational ethics and workplace incivility with transformational leadership style as a mediator. Therefore, 72 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh transformational leadership did not mediate the relationship between employees’ attitude to organisational ethics and behavioural workplace incivility in the MTN Ghana Company. Meanwhile, the results showed a direct, significant positive relationship between organisational ethics (which is the independent variable) and workplace incivility (the dependent variable). The implication is that the presence of transformational leadership did not facilitate or explain the stated relationship between the two constructs. However, the results of the current study contrasted with the results of some reviewed literature. Notable among them is the study conducted by Kaiser and Kaiser (2017) which established that transformational leadership style was strongly related to low levels of incivility. In other words, a strong, negative relationship existed between transformational leadership and incivility in the work environment. On the contrary, the current study found a direct positive, insignificant relationship between transformational leadership and workplace incivility. In this particular instance, although both studies’ findings refer to a direct relationship and not that of mediation, it can be argued that a significant direct relationship between transformational leadership and workplace incivility could predict or influence the indirect relationship (mediation) between organisational ethics and workplace incivility. Thus, based on the current research results, it can be deduced that transformational leadership style is more likely to mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility if it (transformational leadership) has a direct significant relationship with incivility in the workplace. While the findings of the present study (from table 4.6 in chapter four) showed positive indirect relationship between transformational leadership (TRF L) and workplace incivility (WI), it is obvious that the relationship is weak. Thus the weak, significant indirect effect between transformational leadership and workplace incivility (β= 0.008, t-statistic = 0.403, p > 0.01) is indicative of what needs to be done by management of MTN Ghana. This implies that 73 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh transformational leadership behaviours such as instilling a sense of shared responsibility among employees, conscientizing workers on company core values and ethics should be demonstrated, thus holding workplace incivility in check while promoting organisational ethics in the company. In this regard, Taylor & Pattie (2014) emphasized that leadership behaviours including inspiring subordinates to seek shared over personal interests while encouraging acceptable behaviours among staffs. This may well influence employees’ views to appreciate the fact that mutual respect, for example, is cherished and upheld, which may ultimately mitigate the incidence of behavioural workplace incivility. 5.3 Transactional Leadership as a Mediator Between Organisational Ethics and Workplace Incivility The third research objective was to explore the mediating role of transactional leadership style between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. In that regard, the hypothesis was that transactional leadership style will mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees in MTN Ghana. The findings of the PLS-SEM from table 4.6 in chapter four proved that the path from organisational ethics through transformational leadership to workplace incivility was positive and significant (β= 0.116, t-statistic = 3.046, p ≤ 0.01). This means that even though there is a direct significant relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility, the presence of transactional leadership as a mediator also facilitates that relationship and thereby creating an indirect effect. This also implies transactional leadership played a partial mediation role since the direct relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility as well as the indirect relationship through transactional leadership were both significant. Although empirical evidence barely exists regarding the mediating effect of transactional leadership on the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility, reviewed 74 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh literature indicates that the study finding is consistent with some studies. For instance, Hood’s (2003 as cited in Brown et al., 2019) research revealed that transactional leadership style was significantly and positively related to morality-based values and personal values. Consequently, the researcher observed that organizations will need to consider both organisational ethics and the type of leadership (including transactional style) exhibited by supervisors so as to maintain moral conducts in the company environment. By implication, transactional leadership could enhance the relationship between the company’s codes of conduct regarding employees’ attitude towards incivility in the workplace. According to Pescosolido (2002 as cited in Rowold & Rohmann, 2009), transactional leadership is realistic and cogent in line with transformational leadership that that touches on individual passions and eagerness. Hence considering the study finding of partial mediation involving transactional leadership, Pescosolido’s (2002) assertion explains why transactional leadership possibly enhanced the effectiveness or the essence of organisational ethics, at the same time, reducing uncivil behaviours among workers to the barest minimum. Nonetheless, another finding in literature revealed that one major link between transactional leadership and moral reasoning or work ethics in relation to workplace incivility is contingent reward (Felix et al., 2015a). Contingent reward scheme is a system of reward which is based on motivation. It is a strategy used in rewarding employees who are able to achieve their assigned goals. Walumbwa et al. (2008) explained that contingent reward offers positive reinforcement for a good job done and this inspires employees to complete their assigned roles effectively while meeting their targets in a professional and timely manner. Hence, per the current study findings, most of the participants representing 67.0% were first degree holders which makes them fall in the professionals’ category. According to Toffler (1990 as cited in Ampofo, 2014), employees who are professionals first and foremost, derive their rewards based on their own conviction of moral standards and excellence. Such employees are more dedicated 75 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh to the task, not the job and to their ethics, not their supervisor. This means that when there is transactional leadership at play, professionalism thrives, and this would further promote ethical conduct among employees which will in turn lower behavioural acts of incivility in the workplace. Furthermore, based on the study results, the partial mediation of transactional leadership in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility could be explained considering the fact that most participants (68%) are youths. It may be so is because young professionals are more likely to be motivated – to avoid workplace behavioural incivility – by financial rewards, incentives (Niba, 2015); and sometimes punishment, which are associated with transactional leadership. This phenomenon might be underscored by the social learning theory which associates transactional leaders with the use of both incentives or rewards and punitive methods to hold employees accountable to moral standards in terms of organisational ethics (Bedi et al., 2016; Brown et al., 2005; Herminingsih & Supardi, 2017). Notwithstanding, the social learning theory emphasizes that personnel behaviour is significantly impacted by company leadership as a result of the authority leaders wield in their ability offer rewards and mete out punishments (Bandura, 1986 cited in Ross, 2007). Even so, the youth are motivated by rewards because as young people starting up life, they have several needs and wants to fulfill (Maslow, 1954 as cited in Jerome, 2013). Since transactional leadership satisfies employees’ basic necessities it can be effective in accomplishing varied organisational outcomes (Sparh, 2016 as cited in Jerome, 2018). These outcomes include behavioural change culminating in reduced workplace incivility which is a counterproductive behaviour. In addition, the current study results also implies that transactional leadership behaviours like exchanging rewards for meeting expectations and stipulating or specifying the standards for compliance to some extent, inspire workers who feel that it is an obligation to observe organisational ethics and eschew incivility in the workplace. 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Conversely, the current research results contrast with the results of some studies in the literature. For example, while the current study established a direct negative significant relationship between transactional leadership and workplace incivility, Cemaloğlu and Veysel (2012) did not establish any substantive causal effect between transactional leadership behaviours of principals and workplace acts of incivility. It simply means that transactional leadership could not explain or affect any causal effect on uncivil behaviours among employees. In a similar vein, Kaiser and Kaiser's (2017) research showed a lack of significant statistical relationship between transactional leader behaviours and workplace incivility. Subsequently, the authors argued that leadership style is not a definitive factor of incivility, but leader behaviours impact the level of incivility, stressing that since workplace incivility is prevalent, it is essential to adopt a multi-factorial approach in addressing the issue. More importantly however, the seeming inconsistent findings in literature is suggestive of the important role of mediators, which can help to ascertain the circumstances under which the linkage between a particular leadership style and employee incivility may be more or less likely to hold. Supporting this idea, Brown and Mitchell (2010) suggested possible limiting conditions of organizational ethics and leadership on acceptable behaviours expected of subordinates. Therefore, considering the central role played by leaders in affecting employees’ workplace attitudes and conducts, it seems imperative that leaders demonstrate, uphold, and reinforce interpersonal and organizational ethics regarding proper workplace conduct to curb the canker of workplace incivility (Walsh et al , 2018). In sum, the current study results in which transactional leadership partially mediated the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility in MTN gives indication that leadership has a significant influence on employee behaviour. For example, Bemhard and O’Driscoll (2011 as cited in Aleassa & Megdadi, 2014) and Clarke (2013) observed that most cases of behavioural incivility such as workplace aggression is the result of inappropriate 77 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh leadership style as managers fail in such cases to identify the occurrence and the magnitude of incivility in the work environment. This view, which is also shared by Avolio and Yammarino (2013 as cited in Payne, 2019), brings to the fore the mediating role of leadership style on employee behaviour. Hence the need for high-quality (transactional) leadership interventions from supervisors as a contributory factor promoting ethical conduct toward a workplace devoid of incivility. 78 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 Introduction The researcher provides a summary of the study results in this chapter, makes conclusions and recommendations for the study as well as suggestions for further research. 6.1 Summary and Conclusions This study investigated the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility among employees of MTN Ghana in Accra. Also, the mediating role of transformational and transactional leadership styles in the relationship between organisational ethics and workplace incivility was examined. Using the transformational and transactional leadership theories (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985 as cited in Brown et al., 2019) and the social learning theory (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Hall, 2018) as theoretical framework for this research, the relationships between the research constructs were assessed, interpreted and discussed. Results from the study revealed that, contrary to the researcher’s hypothesis predicting a negative relationship, organisational ethics was positively related to workplace incivility. This means that organisational ethics did not decrease behavioural acts of incivility among employees in the telecommunication company. However, although this finding was not consistent with the previous data in literature that suggested a significant negative relationship between workplace incivility and organisational culture of ethics (e.g. Tamunomiebi & Ukwuije, 2021; LRN 2015 cited in Magazzino & Giolli, 2021), it agrees with other studies which suggests the need for a mediator for the relationship between the two constructs to hold (Phillips et al., 2018). Furthermore, no significant indirect effect was observed between organisational ethics and workplace incivility with transformational leadership style as a mediator. The meaning is that 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh transformational leadership did not mediate the relationship between organisational ethics and behavioural workplace incivility. Also, transactional leadership partially mediated the relationship between organisational ethics workplace incivility. That shows the significance of the mediating effect of leadership style as well as the need for managers to consider transactional leadership qualities as an important determining factor of organisational ethics and positive employee practices toward an incivility free work environment. 6.2 Practical Implications of Findings Following the discussion of results and the subsequent conclusions from the current research, the suggestions below have been offered by the researcher: The constantly changing business environment requires managers whose leadership behaviours will impact positively on employee behaviour towards organisational goals and enhanced profitability. It is instructive to note however, that when it comes to the effect of leadership on organisational ethics and incivility, the seeming inconsistent findings in literature suggest the presence of moderators or mediators, which identify conditions under which the link between leadership style – transactional or transformational – and employee incivility may be more or less likely to hold. This refers to factors like employee predispositions, demographics cultural orientation and other potential boundary conditions of organizational ethics and leadership on inappropriate follower behaviour (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Therefore, given the important role leaders play in influencing employees’ workplace attitudes and behaviours, it is imperative that managers define the leadership style suitable for their firm in light of the aforementioned criteria or factors. Subsequently, leadership should demonstrate, uphold, and reinforce interpersonal and organizational ethics involving workplace code of conduct with the view to reducing the escalation of workplace incivility (Walsh, et al., 2018). 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Also, the leadership of MTN Ghana may have to provide thorough training programs to prepare the employees for the policies, code of conduct, and expectations in order to increase employee “ethical awareness” and to “define criteria for ethical decision-making within the organization” (Paliwal, 2006) while holding employees accountable for compliance. Lastly, it is recommended that managers of MTN Ghana emphasize transactional leader behaviours such as motivating workers by promoting ethical standards and instilling discipline through rewards and appropriate punishments. The outcome of this could be a climate of ethics and good working conditions beneficial to every interested party as well as the organisation as a whole. This will engender appropriate conduct among employees and shape individuals’ perceptions about organisational ethics (Taylor & Pattie, 2014) which may lower workplace incivility in the company. 6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research While the present study makes significant contributions to literature and practice, some limitations were recognised and duly highlighted as follows: 6.3.1 The research sample was confined to employees of MTN Ghana in Accra owing to time and financial constraints. However, it must be noted that the number of MTN employees in Accra alone accounts for more than sixty percent of the company’s entire workforce in the country. Therefore the findings, to a large extent, may be generalizable. 6.3.2 This study focused on transformational and transactional leadership styles based on the assumption that these two types of leadership wield significant influence on follower behaviour. Hence future research includes other leadership styles such as authentic, ethical leadership styles and their influence on workplace incivility. 6.3.3 This study focused on the telecommunication industry. It is therefore recommended that future studies consider other industries to gauge the study outcome in those industries. 81 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh REFERENCES Abolfazl Vagharseyyedin, S. (2015). Workplace incivility: A concept analysis. Contemporary Nurse, 50(1), 115–125. Achunguh, D. A. (2020). THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEE’S PERFORMANCE IN AN ORGANIZATION (p. Thesis Diissertation, Siam University, Bangkok). p. Thesis Diissertation, Siam University, Bangkok. SIAM UNIVERSITY BANGKOK, THAILAND. 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. Ågotnes, K. W., Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., Espevik, R., Bakker, A. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2021). Daily work pressure and exposure to bullying-related negative acts: The role of daily transformational and laissez-faire leadership. European Management Journal, 39(4), 423–433. Ahmad, Saima, Sohal, A. S., & Cox, J. W. (2020). Leading well is not enough: a new insight from the ethical leadership, workplace bullying and employee well-being relationships. European Business Review. Aigbogun, O., Ghazali, Z., & Razali, R. (2017). The Impact of regulatory function on supply chain resilience: Reliability of measurement scales. Global Business and Management Research, 9(1s), 524. Ajayi, O. V. (2017). Course Title: Advance Statistical Methods in Education Course Code: EDU 901 Course of Study: PhD Science Education. Akomeah Gyamfi, I. (2013). Workplace incivility and its effect on performance: A study of the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. Al-Ali, A. A., Singh, S. K., Al-Nahyan, M., & Sohal, A. S. (2017). Change management 82 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh through leadership: the mediating role of organizational culture. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Al Ahmad, Sherine, Easa, N. F., & Mostapha, N. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership on innovation: Evidence from Lebanese Banks. European Research Studies Journal, 22(4), 215-240., 22(4), 215–240. Albion, M. J., & Gagliardi, R. E. (2007). A study of transformational leadership, organisational change and job satisfaction. Proceedings of the 7th Industrial & Organisational Psychology Conference and 1st Asia Pacific Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology: Better Work. Better Organisations. Better World, 1–5. Australian Psychological Society. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage. Aleassa, H. M., & Megdadi, O. D. (2014). Workplace bullying and unethical behaviors: A mediating model. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 157. Ali, A. Y. S., Sidow, M. A., & Guleid, H. S. (2013). Leadership styles and job satisfaction: empirical evidence from Mogadishu universities. European Journal of Management Sciences and Economics Vol, 1(1). Alqatawenh, A. S. (2018). Transformational leadership style and its relationship with change management. Verslas: Teorija Ir Praktika, 19(1), 17–24. Ama, N., & Arthur, D. (2016). THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY IN GHANA ’ S TELECOMMUNICATION. An MPhil Thesis / Dissertation Presented to the University of Ghana, (June). Amanullah, R. (2021). Impact of Passive Leadership on Emotional Exhaustion with the Mediating Role of Workplace Incivility and Moderating Role of Affective Commitment. CAPITAL UNIVERSITY. Ampofo, E. Y. (2016). LEADERSHIP STYLE AS A PREDICTOR OF JOB SATISFACTION 83 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT : EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM UNILEVER. A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO UNIVERSITY OF GHANA. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Anwar, K. (2017). Leading Construction Project Teams: The Effectiveness of Transformational Leadership in Dynamic Work Environments in Kurdistan. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 3(10), 239925. Appelbaum, S. H., Bélisle-Mignacca, M.-S., Mehta, J., & Parisse, L. (2018). Links between Specific Emotional Intelligence Competencies and Transformational Leadership Behaviors. The International Journal of Management and Business, 9(1), 11–34. Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 33(5471), 1–8. Asiamah, N., Mensah, H. K., & Oteng-Abayie, E. F. (2017). General, target, and accessible population: Demystifying the concepts for effective sampling. The Qualitative Report, 22(6), 1607. Avolio, B J, & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (TM). Mind Garden, Inc. Menlo Park, CA. Avolio, Bruce J, Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105–131. Babbie, E. R. (1989). The practice of social research. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bacha, E., & Walker, S. (2013). The relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ perceptions of fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 667–680. Bai, Q., Lin, W., & Wang, L. (2016). Family incivility and counterproductive work behavior: 84 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and emotional regulation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 11–19. Baidoo, C. (2020). Examining the Link between Market Power in the Telecommunication Industry and Financial Inclusion in Ghana. University Of Ghana. Bandura, A, & Hall, P. (2018). Albert bandura and social learning theory. Learning Theories For Early Years Practice, 63. Bandura, Albert, & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster. Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517–536. Bhandari, P. (2020). An introduction to qualitative research. Scribbr. Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1622–1629. Birks, M., Cant, R. P., Budden, L. M., Russell-Westhead, M., Özçetin, Y. S. Ü., & Tee, S. (2017). Uncovering degrees of workplace bullying: A comparison of baccalaureate nursing students’ experiences during clinical placement in Australia and the UK. Nurse Education in Practice, 25, 14–21. 85 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Bohórquez, N. (2014). Organizational commitment and leadership in higher education institutions. Organizational Commitment And Leadership In Higher Education Institutions, 7–21. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138–157. Brehm, S. N. (2019). The Impact of Practice Environment on Workplace Incivility in Hospital Settings. Grand Canyon University. Brown, M., Brown, R. S., & Nandedkar, A. (2019). Transformational leadership theory and exploring the perceptions of diversity management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 19(7). Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. Bureau, J. S., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Mageau, G. A. (2021a). Transformational Leadership and Incivility : A Multilevel and Longitudinal Test. Jpournal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), NP448–NP473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517734219 Bureau, J. S., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Mageau, G. A. (2021b). Transformational leadership and incivility: A multilevel and longitudinal test. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), NP448–NP473. Burns, J. M. (2004). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness (Vol. 213). Grove 86 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Press. Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 175–187. Campbell, T. R. (2020). Relationship between Transformational Leadership Style and Financial Sustainability. Walden University. Cemaloğlu, N. (2011). Primary principals’ leadership styles, school organizational health and workplace bullying. Journal of Educational Administration. Cemaloğlu, N., & Veysel, O. (2012). lköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Liderlik Stilleri İle Öğretmenlerin Yıldırma (Mobbing) Yaşama Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişki. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(3), 214–239. Chaudhry, S. (2013). Effect of transformational leader communication on affective commitment to change. Cheah, J.-H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., & Ting, H. (2018). Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: On using single- item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Chen, Y., Zhou, X., & Klyver, K. (2019). Collective efficacy: Linking paternalistic leadership to organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 587–603. Child, C. (2015). Mainstreaming and its discontents: Fair trade, socially responsible investing, and industry trajectories. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(3), 601–618. Cicerali, E. E., & Cicerali, L. K. (2017). Workplace Incivility as Low-Level Violence: Theories, Consequences, and Future Research Suggestions. In Handbook of Research on Organizational Culture and Diversity in the Modern Workforce (pp. 155–180). IGI Global. 87 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ÇINAR, Ö. (2019). Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Perspectives on Applied Economics and Politics: Cases from Turkey, 309. Clarke, S. (2013). Safety leadership: A meta‐analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(1), 22–49. Convertino, A. D., Gonzales IV, M., Malcarne, V. L., & Blashill, A. J. (2019). A psychometric investigation of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire-4-Revised among sexual minority adults in the US. Body Image, 31, 96– 101. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. 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. 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. Cortina, L., & Magley, V. (2014). Incivility in the Workplace : Incidence and Impact. (April). https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 Dartey-baah, K. (2015). Resilient leadership : a transformational-transactional leadership mix. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-07- 2014-0026 Dartey-Baah, K. (2015). Resilient leadership: A transformational-transactional leadership mix. Journal of Global Responsibility. Dartey-Baah, K., & Addo, S. A. (2018). Charismatic and corrective leadership dimensions as antecedents of employee safety behaviours: a structural model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 88 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DeConinck, J. B. (2015). Outcomes of ethical leadership among salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1086–1093. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., MacLure, M., Otterstad, A. M., Torrance, H., Cannella, G. S., … McTier, T. (2017). Critical qualitative methodologies: Reconceptualizations and emergent construction. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(4), 482–498. Drucker, P. (1981). What is business ethics. The Public Interest, 63(2), 18–36. Durrheim, K. (2006). Research design. Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences, 2, 33–59. Estes, B., & Wang, J. (2008). Integrative literature review: Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), 218–240. Estes, B., Wang, J. I. A., & Texas, A. (2008). Workplace Incivility : Impacts on Individual and Organizational Performance. Human Resource Development Review, XX(X). https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308315565 Ete, Z., Sosik, J. J., Cheong, M., Chun, J. U., Zhu, W., Arenas, F. J., & Scherer, J. A. (2020). Leader honesty/humility and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior: a case of too-much-of-a-good-thing? Journal of Managerial Psychology. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). A validity-based framework for understanding replication in psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 316–344. Faeth, M. . (2010). Power, authority and influence: A comparative study of the behavioural influence tactics used by lay and ordained leaders in the Episcopal Church. Doctoral Philosophy. Virginia. Fahie, D., & Dunne, G. (2021). Standing by or Standing Up?—How Philosophy Can (In) form Our Understanding of Bystander Behaviours in Workplace Bullying Dynamics. Societies, 11(2), 28. 89 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Farahnak, L. R., Ehrhart, M. G., Torres, E. M., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 98– 111. Featherston, M. (2012). Effective Processes for Dealing With Destructive Managers. Feizi, M., Ebrahimi, E., & Beheshti, N. (2014). Investigating the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment of high school teachers in Germi. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 3, 17–30. Felix, C. O., Ahmad, A. H. B., & Arshad, R. B. (2015a). Examining ethical reasoning and transactional leadership style in the nigerian public sector. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(6), 88–94. Felix, C. O., Ahmad, A. H. B., & Arshad, R. B. (2015b). Examining Ethical Reasoning And Transactional Leadership Style In The Nigerian Public Sector. 20(6), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-20618894 Felix, C. O., Ahmad, A. H. B., & Arshad, R. B. (2016). Examining Ethical Reasoning and Transformational Leadership Style in Nigeria Public Sector. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016635256 Floyd, K. S. (2010). Leadership styles, ethics institutionalization, ethical work, climate, and employee attitudes toward information technology misuse in higher education: A correlational study. Fox, E., Bottrell, M. M., Berkowitz, K. A., Chanko, B. L., Foglia, M. B., & Pearlman, R. A. (2010). IntegratedEthics: An innovative program to improve ethics quality in health care. Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–36. Freeman, B. J., Bess, G., Fleming, C. M., & Novins, D. K. (2019). Transforming through leadership: a qualitative study of successful American Indian Alaska Native behavioral health leaders. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–11. 90 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2017). The emergence of leadership styles: A clarified categorization. Revista De Management Comparat International, 18(1), 18. Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of Management Research, 18(4), 261–269. García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040– 1050. Garg, A. K., & Ramjee, D. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment at a parastatal company in South Africa. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 12(11), 1411–1436. Geldart, S., Langlois, L., Shannon, H. S., Cortina, L. M., Griffith, L., & Haines, T. (2018). Workplace incivility, psychological distress, and the protective effect of co-worker support. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Gharibvand, S. (2012). The relationship between Malaysian organizational culture, participative leadership style, and employee job satisfaction among Malaysian employees from semiconductor industry. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(16), 289–298. Ghosh, R. (2017). Workplace Incivility in Asia-How do we take a Socio-Cultural Perspective? Taylor & Francis. Giddens, J. (2018). Transformational leadership: What every nursing dean should know. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(2), 117–121. Givens, R. J. (2008). Transformational leadership: The impact on organizational and personal 91 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4–24. Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269–286. Gliem, J. A., & Calculating, G. R. (2003). interpreting and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales.[Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education]. press. Gregg, H. (2021). What Was That? Four Studies of Workplace Incivility. University of Miami. Grigoropoulos, J. E. (2019a). The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 167–175. Grigoropoulos, J. E. (2019b). The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations. 15(2), 167– 175. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.189.12 Guay, R. P. (2013). The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Gwenda, B., Phillips, S., & Mackusick, C. I. (2018). Workplace Incivility in Nursing: A Literature Review Through the Lens of Ethics and Spirituality. (April). https://doi.org/10.1097/CNJ.0000000000000467 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 616–632. Haque, A., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2019). The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions: An empirical study with Australian employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 759–774. Harrison, J. L. (2011). Instructor transformational leadership and student outcomes. 92 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 82–136. Hartzler-Weakley, K. (2018). Examining the impact of transformational and transactional leadership style on work attitudes, motivation, and work outcomes in nonprofit organizations. James Madison University. Hasan, M., Musa, C. I., Azis, M., & Tahir, T. (2020). Positive psychological capital, market orientation, and business performance of family business in the culinary sector: A research study. Economics & Sociology, 13(3), 97–112. Herminingsih, A., & Supardi, W. (2017). The Effects of Work Ethics, Transformational and Transactional Leadership on Work Performance of Teachers. Management Studies, 5(3), 250–261. Hershcovis, M. S., Neville, L., Reich, T. C., Christie, A. M., Cortina, L. M., & Shan, J. V. (2017). Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 45–57. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., … Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228. Hills, D. J. (2018). Defining and classifying aggression and violence in health care work. Collegian, 25(6), 607–612. Hodkinson, S. (2009). Teaching what we (preach and) practice: The MA in Activism and Social Change. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 8(3), 462– 473. Hollenbeck, G. P., McCall Jr, M. W., & Silzer, R. F. (2006). Leadership competency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 398–413. Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Bäckström, M. (2015). Models of Workplace Incivility : The Relationships to Instigated Incivility and Negative Outcomes. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/920239 93 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Holten, A.-L., & Brenner, S. O. (2015). Leadership style and the process of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Hood, J. N. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 263–273. Hood, J. N. (2015). The Relationship of Leadership Style and CEO Values to Ethical Practices in Organizations. (March). https://doi.org/10.1023/A Huffman, S., Shaw, E., & Loyless, S. (2020). Ensuring ethics and equity: Policy, planning, and digital citizenship. Education, 140(2), 87–99. Hülsheger, U. R., van Gils, S., & Walkowiak, A. (2021). The regulating role of mindfulness in enacted workplace incivility: An experience sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1250. Hunt, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2018). Styles of leadership. Leadership: Global and Regional Perspectives, 62–98. Hussein, B., & Yesiltas, M. (2020). The influence of emotional intelligence on employee’s counterwork behavior and organizational commitment: mediating role of transformational leadership. Revista de Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala, 71, 377. I QUIERREZ, J., & G ALCARAZ, L. E. O. (2021). Hopes and Challenges of Filipino Displaced Workers at This Covid-19 Pandemic Period. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27(3), 858–866. Incivility, W., Leadership, E., Of, S., Workers, M., Accra, I. N., & Nkansah-sarkodie, K. (2019). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh. (July). Itzkovich, Y., & Dolev, N. (2017). Incivility, empathy, and ethical work climate among hospital staff in Israel. Contemporary Perspectives in Corporate Social Performance and Policy: The Middle Eastern Perspective, 223. Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. J. B. (2010). Transformational and active transactional leadership in 94 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh the Canadian military. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Jalil, A., Azam, F., & Rahman, M. K. (2010). Implementation mechanism of ethics in business organizations. International Business Research, 3(4), 145. Jameel, A. S., & Ahmad, A. R. (2019). The effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction among academic staff. The 34th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) Conference, 13–14. James, N., & George, R. (2018). Exploring the influence of Environmental Uncertainty and Supply chain practices A Quarterly. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 15(4), 22– 31. Jehan, N., Gull, S., Khan, N. A., & Hussain, A. (2020). Relationship between organisational virtue and perceived role of ethics and perception of social responsibility in business: testing a mediation model. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 14(2), 166–180. Jerome, I. (2018). An investigation on the nexus between leadership style and job satisfaction of library staffin private university libraries South-West, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2018(February). Jerome, N. (2013). [PDF] Application of the Maslow ’ s hierarchy of need theory ; impacts and implications on organizational culture , human resource and employee ’ s performance Dr . | Semantic Scholar. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3), 39–45. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Application-of-the-Maslow-’-s-hierarchy-of- need-%3B-%2C-Jerome/b0bcc8ca45193eaf700350a8ac2ddfc09a093be8 Jin, D., Kim, K., & DiPietro, R. B. (2020). Workplace incivility in restaurants: who’s the real victim? Employee deviance and customer reciprocity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 86, 102459. Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (2013). Someone to look up to: Executive–follower ethical reasoning and perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of 95 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Management, 39(3), 660–683. Kaiser, J. A. (2017). The relationship between leadership style and nurse‐to‐nurse incivility: Turning the lens inward. Journal of Nursing Management, 25(2), 110–118. Kaiser, J. A., & Kaiser, J. A. (2017). The relationship between leadership style and nurse-to- nurse incivility : turning the lens inward. Journal of Nursing Management, 25, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12447 Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2013). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road Ahead 10th anniversary edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246. Khalid, K., Abdullah, H. H., & Kumar M, D. (2012). Get along with quantitative research process. International Journal of Research in Management. Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178–183. Khan, N. R., Ghouri, A. M., & Awang, M. (2013). Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior in small and medium scale firms. Researchers World-Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 4(2), 153–163. Khokhar, A. M., & Zia-ur-Rehman, M. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’ performance: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(1), 222–251. Kimberling, L. S. (2008). Ethical reasoning and transformational leadership: An investigation of public sector leaders. Capella University. 96 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1. Kott, J. K. (2012). The role of ethics in employee behavior. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648–657. Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market orientation throughout the organization: A social learning theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 61– 79. Lan, T.-S., Chang, I., Ma, T.-C., Zhang, L.-P., & Chuang, K.-C. (2019). Influences of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and patriarchal leadership on job satisfaction of cram school faculty members. Sustainability, 11(12), 3465. Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., Cummings, G. G., & Grau, A. L. (2014). Resonant leadership and workplace empowerment: The value of positive organizational cultures in reducing workplace incivility. Nursing Economics, 32(1), 5. Lee, D., Choi, Y., Youn, S., & Chun, J. U. (2017). Ethical leadership and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy and the moderating role of leader–follower value congruence. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47–57. Lee, J. J., Cho, J., Baek, Y., Pillai, R., & Oh, S. H. (2019). Does ethical leadership predict follower outcomes above and beyond the full-range leadership model and authentic leadership?: An organizational commitment perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 821–847. Lee, J., & Jensen, J. M. (2014). The effects of active constructive and passive corrective leadership on workplace incivility and the mediating role of fairness perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 39(4), 416–443. 97 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Lee, M. (2014). Transformational leadership: is it time for a recall? International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 1(1), 17–29. Lee, P. K. C., Cheng, T. C. E., Yeung, A. C. L., & Lai, K. (2011). An empirical study of transformational leadership, team performance and service quality in retail banks. Omega, 39(6), 690–701. Leiter, M. (2013). Analyzing and theorizing the dynamics of the workplace incivility crisis. Springer. Leiter, M. P., Day, A., & Price, L. (2015). Attachment styles at work: Measurement, collegial relationships, and burnout. Burnout Research, 2(1), 25–35. Leiter, M. P., Peck, E., & Gumuchian, S. (2015). Workplace incivility and its implications for well-being. In Mistreatment in organizations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership: Theory. Application, Skill Development (South-Western Publishing, Mason, OH). Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2010). Workplace bullying: Causes, consequences, and corrections. In Destructive organizational communication (pp. 43– 68). Routledge. Luttrell, A., Philipp-Muller, A., & Petty, R. E. (2019). Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychological Science, 30(8), 1136–1150. Madison, K., & Eva, N. (2019). Social exchange or social learning: a theoretical fork in road for servant leadership researchers. In Leading for high performance in Asia (pp. 133– 158). Springer. Magazzino, C., & Giolli, L. (2021). The relationship among railway networks, energy consumption, and real added value in Italy. Evidence form ARDL and Wavelet analysis. Research in Transportation Economics, 101126. Mahmoud, M. A., & Hinson, R. E. (2012). Market orientation, innovation and corporate 98 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh social responsibility practices in Ghana’s telecommunication sector. Social Responsibility Journal. Majluf, N. S., & Navarrete, C. M. (2011). A two-component compliance and ethics program model: An empirical application to Chilean corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 567–579. Malik, W. U., Javed, M., & Hassan, S. T. (2017). Influence of transformational leadership components on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(1), 147–166. Mathew, M., & Gupta, K. S. (2015). Transformational leadership: Emotional intelligence. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(2), 75. Matsimbe, C. M. R. (2017). Influence of integrity and moral intelligence on authentic leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. McCaffrey, R., & Reinoso, H. (2017). Transformational leadership: A model for advanced practice holistic nurses. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 35(4), 397–404. McCarthy, R. V, McCarthy, M. M., Ceccucci, W., Halawi, L., McCarthy, R. V, McCarthy, M. M., … Halawi, L. (2019). Applying Predictive Analytics. Springer. McCauley, C. D., & McCall Jr, M. W. (2014). Using experience to develop leadership talent: How organizations leverage on-the-job development. John Wiley & Sons. McDermott, R. (2020). Leadership and the strategic emotional manipulation of political identity: An evolutionary perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101275. Mesu, J., Sanders, K., & van Riemsdijk, M. (2015). Transformational leadership and organisational commitment in manufacturing and service small to medium-sized enterprises: The moderating effects of directive and participative leadership. Personnel Review. 99 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Metwally, D., Ruiz-palomino, P., Metwally, M., Gartzia, L., & Duncan, D. J. (2019). How Ethical Leadership Shapes Employees ’ Readiness to Change : The Mediating Role of an Organizational Culture of Effectiveness. 10(November), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02493 Miller, R. L., & Brewer, J. D. (2003). The AZ of social research: a dictionary of key social science research concepts. Sage. Mills, L. B. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(2), 22. Minnis, S. E., & Sherlock, J. J. (2020). Organisational Ethics as Foundational for Organisational Health and Sustainability. In The Future of HRD, Volume II (pp. 199– 217). Springer. Mitchell, M. S., Reynolds, S. J., & Treviño, L. K. (2017). The study of behavioral ethics within organizations. Personnel Psychology, 70(2), 313–314. Mohamad, A. H. M. (2015). Leadership styles, organisational culture and managerial effectiveness: The moderating effect of Islamic works ethics in Saudi Arabia public sector. Universiti Utara Malaysia. Moon, C., & Sánchez‐Rodríguez, Á. (2020). Cultural influences on normative reactions to incivility: comparing individuals from South Korea and Spain. International Journal of Conflict Management. Muenjohn, N. (2010). Transformational Leadership: A new force in leadership research. School of Management, RMIT University, Australia. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). Leadership styles. Advances in Management, 7(2), 57. Nauman, S., Malik, S. Z., & Jalil, F. (2019). How workplace bullying jeopardizes employees’ life satisfaction: The roles of job anxiety and insomnia. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2292. 100 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ngozwana, N. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research Methodology: Researcher’s Reflections. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(1), 19–28. Niba, J. A. (2015). Examining extrinsic rewards and participation motivation in male youth soccer. Doctoral Dissertation, United States Sports Academy, (January), 1–134. Nicholson, W. D. (2007). Leading where it counts: An investigation of the leadership styles and behaviors that define college and university presidents as successful fundraisers. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(4), 256–270. Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127–136. Nkansah-Sarkodie, K. (2019). Workplace Incivility, Ethical Leadership and Occupational Safety: A Study of Manufacturing Workers in Accra. University Of Ghana. Novak, A., Breznik, K., & Natek, S. (2020). How leaders can initiate knowledge management in organizations: Role of leadership style in building knowledge infrastructure. Human Systems Management, 39(1), 37–50. Ocon, R. (2020). A Semester Project to Promote Increased Understanding of Ethical Principles. A Semester Project Tpo Promote Ethical Principles. Odumeru, J. A., & Ogbonna, I. G. (2013). Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 355. Ofosu-Boateng, I. (2020). Influence of consumer sales promotion on consumers’ purchasing behaviour of the retailing of consumer goods in Tema, Ghana. Journal of Marketing Management, 8(1), 24–36. Ohemeng, F. (2020). Incivility in Organizations; Perspective from Ghana. (September). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5 Oladinrin, O. T., & Ho, C. M. F. (2016). Critical enablers for codes of ethics implementation 101 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh in construction organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 4015023. Olaniran, S. O., & Baruwa, I. B. (2020). Ethical considerations in adult and community education research in Nigeria: issues and perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 16(1), 1–10. Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 4. Paladan, N. N. (2015). Transformational leadership: The emerging leadership style of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 5(1), 64–72. Palinkas, L. A., Mendon, S. J., & Hamilton, A. B. (2019). Innovations in mixed methods evaluations. Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 423–442. Pallant, J. (2011). Survival manual. A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 4. Parry, K. W. (2013). Four phenomenologically determined social processes of organizational leadership: Further support for the construct of transformational leadership. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Parvaresh, V. (2019). Morality and language aggression. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 1–5. Payne, G. R. (2019). Comparing the role of positive leader behaviours for perceptions of workplace relational civility under different norms for respect. Payne, M. L. (2017). Perception and behavior for underreporting workplace violence. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172. 102 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123–137. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. Phillips, G. S., MacKusick, C. I., & Whichello, R. (2018). Workplace incivility in nursing: A literature review through the lens of ethics and spirituality. Journal of Christian Nursing, 35(1), E7–E12. Pope, K. S. (2015). Steps to strengthen ethics in organizations: Research findings, ethics placebos, and what works. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 16(2), 139–152. Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121. Purwanto, A. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Squation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Analysis for Social and Management Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4), 114–123. Quierrez, J. I. (2020). BUSINESS ETHICS : IMPACT TO EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR AND PRODUCTIVITY Business Ethics : Impact To Employee Behavior And Productivity. International Journal of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Business, 11(July 2018), . 159–165. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12637.72161 Qureshi, A. I., Palesch, Y. Y., Barsan, W. G., Hanley, D. F., Hsu, C. Y., Martin, R. L., … Suarez, J. I. (2016). Intensive blood-pressure lowering in patients with acute cerebral hemorrhage. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(11), 1033–1043. Ragab, M. A., & Arisha, A. (2018). Research methodology in business: A starter’s guide. Management and Organizational Studies, 5(1), 1–14. Rahman, M. M. (2017). Transformational Vis-a-Vis Transactional Leadership: A Conceptual Analysis. Young Power in Social Action, 7(1), 87–96. Ramkumar, A., & Priya, P. S. (2013). Leadership styles and employee turnover–A study with 103 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh reference to selected IT organisations. EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies, 3(6), 155–161. Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203. Reio Jr, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237–264. Reio Jr, T. G., & Trudel, J. (2017). Workplace incivility and conflict management styles: Predicting job performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intent. In Adult Education and Vocational Training in the Digital Age (pp. 217–240). IGI Global. Reio, T. G., & Trudel, J. (2013). Workplace incivility and conflict management styles: Predicting job performance, organizational commitment and turnover intent. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET), 4(4), 15–37. Richter, A., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Lornudd, C., Lundmark, R., Mosson, R., & Hasson, H. (2015). iLead—a transformational leadership intervention to train healthcare managers’ implementation leadership. Implementation Science, 11(1), 1–13. Robinson, F. (2011). The ethics of care: A feminist approach to human security. Ross, S. N. (2007). Albert Bandura. The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology, 1. Rowold, J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Extending the transformational-transactional leadership paradigm. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(3), 367– 390. Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Relationships between leadership styles and followers’ emotional experience and effectiveness in the voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 270–286. 104 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ruiz-Alba, J. L., & Munoz, M. M. (2020). Sergey Kazakov. Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 150. Samad, A., Memon, S. B., & Maitlo, A. A. (2021). Workplace incivility and turnover intention among nurses of public healthcare system in Pakistan. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 12(5), 1394–1412. Sander, T., & Teh, P. L. (2014). SmartPLS for the human resources field to evaluate a model. New Challenges of Economic and Business Development. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., … Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. Sayed, S., & Ansari, A. H. (2020). Mediation of corporate social responsibility on transformational leadership and organisational commitment: an empirical evidence. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 8(3–4), 280–298. Schad, E., Torkelson, E., Bäckström, M., & Karlson, B. (2014). Introducing a Swedish translation of the workplace incivility scale. Lund Psychological Reports, 14(1), 1–15. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. 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. Schilpzand, P., Pater, I. E. De, & Erez, A. (2016a). Workplace incivility : A review of the literature and agenda for future research. (October). https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976 Schilpzand, P., Pater, I. E. De, & Erez, A. (2016b). Workplace incivility : A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior ·, 105 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (October). https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976 Schilpzand, P., Pater, I. E. De, & Erez, A. (2016c). Workplace incivility : A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 37(October), 557–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976 Schwarz, G., Newman, A., Cooper, B., & Eva, N. (2016). Servant leadership and follower job performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public Administration, 94(4), 1025–1041. Segon, M., & Booth, C. (2013). Values-Based Approach to Ethical Culture: A Case Study. In Ethics, Values and Civil Society. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (2018). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. In Leadership now: Reflections on the legacy of Boas Shamir. Emerald Publishing Limited. Simola, S. K., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 179–188. Singh, K. (2011). Developing ethics at the workplace through transformational leadership: A study of business organizations in India. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 4(2). Singhapakdi, A., Gopinath, M., Marta, J. K., & Carter, L. L. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of perceived importance of ethics in marketing situations: A study of Thai businesspeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 887–904. Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. (2010). Character and authentic transformational leadership behavior: Expanding the ascetic self toward others. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 251. Sveningsson, S., Alvehus, J., & Alvesson, M. (2012). Managerial leadership: Identities, processes, and interactions. The Work of Managers: Towards a Practice Theory of Management, 69–86. 106 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Tambe, A., & Krishnan, V. R. (2000). Leadership in decision making. Indian Management, 39(5), 69–79. Tamunomiebi, M., & Ukwuije, O. (2021). Workplace Incivility and Counterproductive Work Behaviour: A Review of Literature. European Journal of Human Resource, 5(1), 20–31. Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 595–616. Taylor, S. G., Pattie, M. W., Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). Follower Personality When Does Ethical Leadership Affect Workplace Incivility ? The Moderating Role of Follower Personality. 24(4), 595–616. Tetteh-Opai, A. A., & Omoregie, P. O. (2015). Influence of transactional leadership style on administrative effectiveness in sports organisations in Ghana. IFE Psychologia: An International Journal, 23(2), 64–70. Teymournejad, K., & Elghaei, R. (2017). Effect of transformational leadership on the creativity of employees: An empirical investigation. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 7(1), 1413–1419. Thomas, O. O., & Lawal, O. R. (2020). Exploratory Research Design in Management Sciences: An X-Ray of Literature. Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati: Fascicle: I, Economics & Applied Informatics, 26(2). Thomson III, N. B., Rawson, J. V, Slade, C. P., & Bledsoe, M. (2016). Transformation and transformational leadership:: a review of the current and relevant literature for academic radiologists. Academic Radiology, 23(5), 592–599. 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 & Stress, 30(2), 115–131. Trépanier, S.-G., Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Boudrias, V. (2016). Work environment 107 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh antecedents of bullying: A review and integrative model applied to registered nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 55, 85–97. Treviño, L. K., Den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un) ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635–660. Tung, F.-C. (2016). Does transformational, ambidextrous, transactional leadership promote employee creativity? Mediating effects of empowerment and promotion focus. International Journal of Manpower. Usman, M., Hameed, A. A., & Manzoor, S. (2018). Exploring the links between Ethical Leadershi p and Organizational Unlearning: A Case Study of a European Multinational Company. Business and Economic Review, 10(2), 29–54. Vasconcelos, A. F. (2020a). Analyzing the effects of incivility beyond workplaces. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(5), 1069–1093. Vasconcelos, A. F. (2020b). Workplace incivility: a literature review. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. Vecchiotti, R. (2018). Contemporary leadership: The perspective of a practitioner. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(2), 40–45. Vitell, Scott J, Singhapakdi, A., & Nishihara, C. (2015). The influence of ethics institutionalization on ethical decision making in marketing. In Handbook on ethics and marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing. Vitell, Scott John, & Singhapakdi, A. (2008). The role of ethics institutionalization in influencing organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and esprit de corps. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 343–353. Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. S., & Ayob, N. B. (2011). The influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24–32. 108 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Walsh, B. M. (2018). Positive Leader Behaviors and Workplace Incivility : the Mediating Role of Perceived Norms for Respect respect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(October 2017), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9505-x Walsh, B. M., Lee, J. J., Jensen, J. M., McGonagle, A. K., & Samnani, A.-K. (2018). Positive leader behaviors and workplace incivility: The mediating role of perceived norms for respect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 495–508. Walsh, B. M., Lee, J. J., Jensen, J. M., Mcgonagle, A. K., Samnani, A., & Walsh, B. M. (2018). Positive Leader Behaviors and Workplace Incivility : the Mediating Role of Perceived Norms for Respect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9505-x Walsh, M. M., & Arnold, K. A. (2018). Mindfulness as a buffer of leaders’ self-rated behavioral responses to emotional exhaustion: a dual process model of self-regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2498. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765–782. Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.004 Wang, S.-P., Chen, M.-S., & Li, M.-J. (2018). Key factors affecting deviant workplace behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 12(10), 258–266. Wanjira, J. N., & Njagiru, J. M. (2018). Inventory management practices and financial performance of small and medium scale enterprises in Laikipia County, Kenya. International Academic Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(2), 117–132. Wegner, M., Gu, H., James, R. D., & Quandt, E. (2020). Correlation between phase compatibility and efficient energy conversion in Zr-doped Barium Titanate. Scientific 109 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Reports, 10(1), 1–8. West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 269–299. Willis, S., Clarke, S., & O’Connor, E. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management‐By‐Exception‐Active in safety‐critical contexts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 281–305. Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66. Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Drew, D. S., & Ho, M. (2010). Critical success factors for stakeholder management: Construction practitioners’ perspectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(7), 778–786. Yirenkyi, K. A. (2012). Factors affecting customer satisfaction and preference in the telecommunications industry: a case study of MTN Ghana. Yousaf, N. (2017). A case against transformational leadership: Empirical examples from political history of South Asia. International Journal of Public Leadership. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708–722. Zaheer, H., Sarwar, B., & Muhammad, N. (2021). Demographic Differences in Experiencing Workplace Incivility: Evidence from Public Sector Universities of Quetta. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 15. Zain, E. N. M., Mohamad, S. R., Zainuddin, S. A., Hashim, N. A. A. N., Abdullah, T., Anuar, N. I. M., … Razali, N. A. M. (2020). Validating The Measuring Instrument For The Determinants Of Social Commerce Shopping Intention Among Teenagers. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(6), 1877–1881. 110 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Zauderer, D. G. (2002). Workplace incivility and the management of human capital. Public Manager, 31(1), 36–42. Zeng, K., Wang, D., Ye, Q., Li, Z., & Zheng, X. (2021). Influence of an individual’s unethical behaviour on peers’ vicarious learning in organisations: the role of moral anger. Chinese Management Studies. Zeynivandnezhad, F., Rashed, F., & Kanooni, A. (2019). Exploratory Factor Analysis for TPACK among Mathematics Teachers: Why, What and How. Anatolian Journal of Education, 4(1), 59–76. Zhou, M., & Brown, D. (2015). Educational learning theories. Zhou, Z. E., Yan, Y., Che, X. X., & Meier, L. L. (2015). Effect of workplace incivility on end-of-work negative affect: Examining individual and organizational moderators in a daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 117. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 801–817. Zia-ud-Din, M., Arif, A., & Shabbir, M. A. (2017). The impact of workplace incivility on employee absenteeism and organization commitment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(5), 205–221. Степанова, Э. В. (2012). Effective Leadership. 111 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDICES QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLES University of Ghana Business School Department of Organization & Human Resource Management Dear Respondent, Thank you in advance for completing this questionnaire for my research. This study is being conducted on Organisational Ethics, Leadership Style and Workplace Incivility. The focus is on Telecommunication companies in Ghana. This questionnaire is designed to assist the researcher to make an objective assessment of the Mediating role of leadership style on employee attitude to organizational ethics and workplace incivility, using MTN Ghana as a case study. This exercise is essentially academic and your answers would be treated with the utmost confidentiality they deserve. It is against this backdrop that your input is very essential for this research to be successful. Thank you very much. SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please express your views by ticking the box ‘[√]’ appropriate to your response. 1. Gender: a. Male [ ] b. Female [ ] 2. Level of formal Education: a. SHS [ ] b. Degree [ ] c. Masters’ degree [ ] d. Other, please state………………………… 3. Age (in years): a. 20-29 [ ] b. 30-39 [ ] c. 40-49 [ ] d. 50-59 [ ] e. 60 and above [ ] 4. Number of Years in Organisation: a. 1-3 years [ ] b. 4-7 years [ ] c. 8-11 years [ ] d. Above 11 years [ ] 5. Employment Type: a. Permanent Staff [ ] b. Temporary Staff [ ] c. Contract Staff [ ] SECTION B: LEADERSHIP STYLE I Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your immediate Supervisor or Manager using the response scale below: (1) = Strongly Disagree (2) = Disagree (3) = Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) = Agree (5) = Strongly Agree. 112 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh My Supervisor / Manager: 1 2 3 4 5 1 Holds subordinates responsible for things outside their job descriptions 2 Publicly belittles subordinates 3 Reminds subordinates of their past mistakes and failures 4 Controls how subordinates complete their tasks 5 Does not permit subordinates to approach goals in new ways 6 Determines all decisions in the unit whether they are important or not 7 Has a sense of personal entitlement 8 Thinks that he / she is more capable than others 9 Believes that he / she is an extra-ordinary person 10 Drastically changes his/her demeanour when his/her supervisor is around 11 Will only offer assistance to people who can help him / her get ahead 12 Accepts credit for successes that do not belong to him / her 13 Allows his / her current mood to define the climate of the workplace 14 Expresses anger at subordinates for apparently no reasons 15 Varies in his / her degree of approachability SECTION C: LEADERSHIP STYLE II Instructions: Please indicate the frequency with which you agree with the following statements about your immediate Supervisor or Manager using the response scale below: (1) = Strongly Disagree (2) = Disagree (3) = Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) = Agree (5) = Strongly Agree. My Supervisor / Manager: 1 2 3 4 5 1 Instils pride in me for associating with him 2 Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group 3 Acts in ways that build my respect 4 Displays a sense of power and confidence 5 Talks about his / her most important values and beliefs 6 Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of decision 7 Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 113 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 Talks optimistically about the future 9 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 10 Expresses a compelling vision of the future 11 Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 12 Re-examines critical assumptions to questions whether they are appropriate 13 Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 14 Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 15 Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 16 Spends time teaching and coaching subordinates 17 Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a team 18 Considers me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others 19 Helps me to develop strengths 20 Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 21 Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets 22 Makes clear what I can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved 23 Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations 24 Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations from standards 25 Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failure 26 Keeps track of all mistakes 27 Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 28 Fails to interfere until problems become serious 29 Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 30 Shows that he / she is a firm believer in “If it will not break, don’t fix it” 31 Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action 114 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh SECTION D: ORGANISATIONAL ETHICS Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your immediate Supervisor or Manager using the response scale below: (1) = Strongly Disagree (2) = Disagree (3) = Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) = Agree (5) = Strongly Agree. 1 2 3 4 5 1 It is okay for a supervisor to ask an employee to support someone else’s incorrect view point 2 It is sometimes necessary for the company to engage in shady practices because the competitors are doing so 3 An employee should overlook someone’s wrongdoings if it is in the best interest of the organisation 4 A supervisor should not care how results are achieved as long as the desired outcomes occur 5 There is nothing wrong with a supervisor asking an employee to falsify a document 6 Profit should be given a higher priority than the safety of a product 7 An employee may need to tell a lie to a co-worker to protect the company 8 An employee may need to tell a lie to another company’s representative to protect the company 9 An employee may need to tell a lie to a customer / client in order to protect the company SECTION E: WORKPLACE INCIVILITY Instructions: Please indicate how often you have engaged in the following behaviours using the response scale below: (1) = Never (2) = Rarely (3) = Sometimes (4) = Quite Often (5) = Very Often 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh How often have you exhibited the following behaviours in the past year to 1 2 3 4 5 someone in the workplace? 1 Put down others or were condescending to them in some way 2 Paid little or no attention to a statement made by someone or showed little interest in their opinion 3 Made demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about someone 4 Addressed a colleague in unprofessional terms either privately or publicly 5 Ignored or excluded someone from professional camaraderie (e.g. Social conversation) 6 Doubted someone’s judgment in a matter over which they have responsibility 7 Made unwarranted attempts to draw someone into a discussion of personal matters How often have you engaged in each of the following behaviours in the last year? 8 Made fun of or mocked at a colleague at the workplace 9 Said something hurtful to someone at work 10 Made an ethnic, religious or racial remarks or joke at work 11 Cursed someone in the workplace 12 Publicly embarrassed someone at work 13 Played a mean prank on someone in the workplace 14 Acted rudely towards someone at work End of Questionnaire Thank you for your time. 116