UNIVERSITY OF GHANA 

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 

 

 

 

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY, ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY: A 

STUDY OF MANUFACTURING WORKERS IN ACCRA 

 

 

 

 

 

KOFI NKANSAH-SARKODIE 

(10307358) 

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 

 

 

JULY 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA 

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES 

 

 

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY, ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY: A 

STUDY OF MANUFACTURING WORKERS IN ACCRA 

 

 

 

 

 

KOFI NKANSAH-SARKODIE 

(10307358) 

 

 

 

 

THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL 

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL IN INDUSTRIAL 

AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE.  

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 

 

 

JULY 2019 

 



i 

  

DECLARATION 

I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own research and has not been presented 

either in whole or in part to any institution for the award of any degree. All references used in 

this thesis have been fully acknowledged. I bear sole responsibility for any shortcoming in the 

work. 

……………………………….                                                          Date: …………………                                   

KOFI NKANSAH-SARKODIE 

 

 (STUDENT)              

 

 

This thesis has been submitted for examination with approval of: 

……………………………….                                                         Date: …………………….                                     

DR. INUSAH ABDUL-NASIRU 

 

 (PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR)              

 

 

……………………………….                                                          Date: ……………………                                     

DR. FRANCIS ANNOR 

 

 (CO-SUPERVISOR)              

 



ii 

  

DEDICATION 

I dedicate this work to the Nkansah-Sarkodie family for the immense support and care. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iii 

  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

My deepest appreciation goes to the Almighty God for His love, protection and continuous 

provision of all my needs. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the many people who 

helped to make this thesis possible. I am grateful to my supervisors, Dr. Francis Annor and Dr. 

Inusah Abdul-Nasiru, for the contributions, guidance and the support I received throughout the 

process. 

I also want to thank my wonderful family for all the love and support throughout this endeavour. 

Also I express my gratitude to all the organizations and individuals who assisted me and 

participated in the study. Without you, the project will not have seen the light of the day. Finally, 

I am ever grateful to all my friends and loved ones for your presence and encouragement. God 

bless you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iv 

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONTENTS                            PAGE 

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………………...i 

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………….……………..ii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS….................................................................................................iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….iv 

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………...viii 

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..........ix 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………......x 

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….….xi 

CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................1 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background to the study..................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Statement of the problem ................................................................................................... 6 

1.3 Aim and objectives of the study......................................................................................... 10 

1.4 Relevance of the study.......................................................................................................10 

1.5 Outline of the thesis ..........................................................................................................11 

CHAPTER TWO...................................................................................................................13 

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................13 

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................13 

2.2 Theoretical Framework .....................................................................................................13 

2.2.1 Social Exchange Theory ................................................................................................13 

2.2.2 Social Learning Theory ….............................................................................................16 

2.3 Conceptualization of Terms .............................................................................................18 



v 

  

2.3.1 Workplace Incivility: A general overview.....................................................................18 

2.3.2 Ethical leadership: A general overview.........................................................................20  

2.3.3 Safety Behaviour ..........................................................................................................21 

2.3.4 Safety Climate ..............................................................................................................23 

2.4 Manufacturing Industry in Ghana....................................................................................24 

2.5 Review of Related Studies...............................................................................................25 

2.5.1 Workplace incivility and Safety......................................…………………………......25 

2.5.2 Sources of Incivility at the workplace: Co-worker and Supervisor incivility................26 

2.5.3 Safety climate as mediator between workplace incivility and safety behaviour….......29 

2.5.4 Ethical leadership as mediator between workplace incivility and safety behaviour.....32 

2.6 Rationale of Study............................................................................................................35 

2.7 Statement of Hypotheses..................................................................................................36 

2.8 Conceptual framework......................................................................................................37 

2.9 Operational definition of terms ........................................................................................37 

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................ 38 

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................……...38 

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................38 

3.2 Design................................................................................................................................38 

3.3 Population..........................................................................................................................39  

3.4 Sample and sampling technique .......................................................................................39 

3.5 Demographic characteristics of participants.....................................................................41 

3.6 Instruments/Materials........................................................................................................42 

3.6.1 Demographic variables...................................................................................................42 

3.6.2 Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS)....................................……………………………..42 

3.6.3 Ethical leadership scale (ELS)...................................................................................... 43 



vi 

  

3.6.4 Safety behaviour scale....................................................................................................43 

3.6.5 Safety climate scale....................................................................................................... 44 

3.7 Procedure for Data Collection......................................................................................... 44 

3.8 Ethical Consideration....................................................................................................... 45 

CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................47 

RESULTS .............................................................................................................................47 

4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................47 

4.2 Preliminary Analysis....................................................................................................... 47 

4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis…………………………………………………............... 48 

4.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Workplace Incivility Scale.........................................49 

4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Ethical Leadership Scale............................................49 

4.3.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Safety Climate............................................................51 

4.3.4 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Safety Behaviour........................................................52 

4.4 Correlation matrix of variable………………………………......................................... 54 

4.5 Hypothesis Testing...........................................................................................................56 

4.6 Summary of Main Findings…………………………………………………………….62 

4.7 Observed Model……………………………………………………………………......63 

4.7.1 Description of the Observed model………………………………………………….64 

CHAPTER FIVE ...............................................................................................................65 

DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION....................................65 

5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................65 

5.2 Discussion of key findings………………………………………………….…………65 

5.2.1 Relationship between workplace incivility and safety behaviour……………….…..65 

5.2.2 Sources or dimensions of incivility and safety behaviour………………....................68 

5.2.3 Ethical leadership as moderator between Workplace Incivility and Safety Behaviour...70 



vii 

  

5.2.4 Safety Climate as Mediator between Workplace incivility and Safety Behaviour...... 72 

5.3 Theoretical and Practical Implications of Findings.........................................................73 

5.4 Limitation and Recommendations for Research..............................................................76 

5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....77 

REFERENCE......................................................................................................................78 

APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………….94 

APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………………………94 

APPENDIX 2………………………………………………………………………………95 

APPENDIX 3………………………………………………………………………………98 

APPENDIX 4………………………………………………………………………………99 

APPENDIX 5………………………………………………………………………………106 

APPENDIX 6………………………………………………………………………………108 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



viii 

  

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants…………………………………………..41 

Table 2: Summary of Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, Kurtosis and Alphas of the main 

study……………………………………………………………………………………………..47 

Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS)……………............50 

Table 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS)……………………...51 

Table 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Safety Climate Scale……………………………........52 

Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Safety Behaviour Scale…………………………........53 

Table 7: Correlation matrix of variables………………………………………………………...54 

Table 8: Summary of Regression Analysis of co-worker and supervisor incivility as predictors of  

safety behaviours……………………………………………………………….….......57 

Table 9: Summary of Regression Analysis of ethical leadership as moderator between  

workplace incivility and safety behaviour…………………………………………....58 

Table 10: Summary of Regression Analysis of safety climate as mediator between incivility  

and safety behaviour…………………………………………………………………61 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



ix 

  

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………36 

Figure 2: Path diagram of the moderating relationship among the variables……..…………59 

Figure 3: The interaction effect of ethical leadership and workplace incivility on safety  

behaviour……………………………………………………………………………60 

Figure 4: Path diagram of mediating relationship among variables……………..………….62 

Figure 5: Observed Model…………………………………………………………………..63 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



x 

  

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

 

AGI    Association of Ghana Industries 

DCPP    Disease Control Priorities Project 

EFA    Exploratory Factor Analysis 

ELS    Ethical Leadership Scale 

GSS    Ghana Statistical Service 

ILO    International Labour Organisation 

PCA    Principal Component Analysis 

SET    Social Exchange Theory 

SLT    Social Learning Theory 

WHO    World Health Organisation 

WIS    Workplace Incivility Scale 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



xi 

  

ABSTRACT 

The study examined the relationships between workplace incivility, ethical leadership and 

occupational safety among manufacturing workers in Ghana. The moderating effect of ethical 

leadership in the relationship between workplace incivility and safety behaviour was assessed. 

The study also examined the mediating role of safety climate in the relationship between 

workplace incivility and safety behaviour. Using a cross-sectional survey design, data was 

collected from roofing and aluminium processing companies in Accra.  A sample of 173 

manufacturing workers was conveniently drawn for the study. A structured questionnaire 

measuring workplace incivility (co-worker and supervisor), ethical leadership, safety climate 

and safety behaviour was administered. The results from the multiple regression analysis 

indicated a significant negative relationship between experienced incivility (co-worker incivility 

and supervisor incivility) and safety behaviour. Also co-worker incivility was the stronger 

predictor of safety behaviour compared to supervisor incivility. Ethical leadership moderated 

the relationship between workplace incivility and safety behaviour. Also safety climate partially 

mediated the relationship between workplace incivility and safety behaviour. The findings are 

discussed together with implication for the manufacturing sector. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



1 

  

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background to the Study 

Most workers on the average spend one-third to half of their time at the workplace or 

undertaking work-related activities (Rutledge, 2005). On a regular basis most workers 

contend with mundane work-related issues and behaviours. Pertinent among these issues are 

those related the health, safety and wellbeing of employees at the workplace. Occupational 

safety is unabatedly one of the biggest apprehensions for organisations because of its 

substantial direct and indirect cost implications (Neal & Griffin, 2006).  

The cost of occupational accidents, unsafe behaviours and injuries is well documented 

and presents a major source of worry for organisations and workers alike (Alli, 2008). 

Millions of employees sustain debilitating injuries and thousands of lives are lost at the 

workplace every year (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, Burke, 2009). The most recent estimates 

from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) indicate that annually, about 2.78 million 

occupational fatalities occur across the globe. The number of non-fatal work-related injuries 

was estimated to be 374 million leading to at least 4 days absence (Hämäläinen, Takala, & 

Kiat, 2017; ILO, 2017). Disturbing figures indicate a high fatality rate of 17.39 per 100,000 

persons in the labour force in Africa compared to 3.02 per 100,000 in Europe (Hämäläinen et 

al., 2017). This possibly does not provide a foolproof account as in most developing countries 

data for estimating injuries is underestimated or not available (DCPP, 2007).  

Aside human casualties there are economic and social repercussions. Indirect cost of 

occupational accidents and unsafe behaviours has been found to be two to three times the 

direct cost (ILO, 2003, 2014). Estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) and ILO 

suggest that work-related accidents, occupational diseases and death account for economic 

losses in the range of 4-6 percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually (WHO 



2 

  

2014, ILO 2014).  Accidents cost developing nations nearly 7% of their GDP (Adei & 

Kunfaa, 2007). These losses cannot be afforded in the midst of fast political changes, 

economic challenges and rising new dangers at our workplaces (ILO, 2013). The safety of all 

workers is an essential issue in organisations especially those in high risk occupations and 

thus everyone deserves the right to decent and safe working environments. Given the 

immensity of these figures, researchers have made greater exertions to examining the 

accident process so as to structure relevant safety measures and intervention, and obtain 

elevated levels of occupational safety and health among workers (Gyekye, Salminen & 

Ojajarvi, 2012).  

Over the past decades research on the perception of safety and the safety behaviours 

of employees has emerged as a very important area in safety research. Researchers have 

identified the incidence, patterns, and trends in occupational safety.  One of such is the 

concept of safety culture which is the beliefs and values held in organizations regarding 

employee safety, hazard reduction, and a safe work environment (Cox & Flin, 1998). Thus 

safety culture which encapsulates the overall culture in organizations is the commitment to an 

organisation’s safety programmes by employees, supervisors, managers, leaders and 

management. These values are stable, meaning they do not fluctuate in the short term (Cox & 

Flin, 1998). Additionally many efforts to account for workplace safety have conventionally 

highlighted accident proneness, personality, ergonomic design of equipment, and external 

regulatory systems (Barling, Kelloway & Iverson, 2003). However, towards the later years of 

the 20
th

 century and ongoing there has been a substantial upturn in leadership and 

organizational climate studies (Hoffman, Burke & Zohar, 2017). 

Consequently, there is an increase attention on work situations and management 

practices as predictors of safety at work (Barling et al., 2003; Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Hayes, 

Perander, Smecko & Trask, 1998). Scholars have paid particular attention to the concept of 



3 

  

safety climate which is the aggregate of employees’ shared perceptions of the policies, 

measures, and practices related to safety at the workplace (Huang, Ho, Smith & Chen, 2006; 

Zohar, 1980). Essentially, safety climate has a significant influence on workers’ safety 

performance and injuries on the job (Christian, et al., 2009). 

Safety efforts and safety improvement of various kinds have led to decreasing trends 

in accidents among some high risk industries such as the manufacturing sector (Reniers, 

2017). Despite the progress and contribution of safety research over the years, it has been 

argued that less consideration has been given to contextual factors related to the safety of 

workers (McGonagle, Walsh, Kath, & Morrow, 2014). The role of organisational 

relationships (Lee & Yu, 2011) and important workplace social construct such as workplace 

incivility has been linked organisational climate and safety outcomes (Zohar, 2010). 

Incivility is a form of counterproductive behaviour and is made up of behaviours and 

actions that go against the norms and culture of organisations. According to Anderson and 

Pearson (1999), workplace incivility is characterized by behaviours that demonstrate 

impudence for other people at work. Incivility as a construct is defined as “low-intensity 

deviant behaviours with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms 

for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; p. 457). It alludes to broad inconsiderate 

and insolent treatment at the workplace. Instances of low intensity behaviours include 

refusing to work collaboratively, snubbing or vocally belittling co-workers while ambiguity 

of intent refers to the lack of ability of the victim, onlookers, or instigator to ascertain 

whether there was an intention to cause harm (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, 

Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Not listening, ignoring or passing disparaging remarks about 

someone can also be classified as acts of incivility. Incivility can likewise include 

disregarding or making belittling remarks about somebody (Lim, 2008). Workplace incivility 



4 

  

is ubiquitous in nature and is estimated that 98 percent of workers experience such conducts 

(Porath & Pearson, 2013) 

Even though incivility is considered counterproductive and an exhibition of 

professional misconduct and impropriety at the workplace it could be separated from other 

forms of inappropriate aggressive behaviour on the basis on intention to cause harm and 

intensity of behaviour. Thus, incivility is less severe than bullying and homicide for example 

(Namie, 2003). Workplace incivility is prevalent at the workplace. Research suggests 

occurrences of incivility at work are rising (Pearson & Porath, 2009). These incidences are 

rampant and permeate various areas at the workplace due to its low intensity and inert nature. 

For example, research have found that a majority of the aggression reported by employees’ is 

indicative of experiences that can be described as verbal, passive, and indirect in nature. 

These incidences occur at a high rate (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Likewise, research has 

shown that verbal hostility happens as often as possible without notice by management as 

they usually go unreported (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000).  

Lack of civility is a silent killer. It has the impetus of affecting workplace happiness, 

productivity and health. As a result, an increased rate of incivility requires careful 

consideration due to the overall impact and implication it spells out at the workplace. 

Furthermore incivility, amongst other forms counterproductive behaviours, reveals the social 

culture eminent at the workplace and not only the flaws of people (Leiter, Day & Price, 

2015).An emergent body of research have been undertaken on workplace incivility and its 

effect on organisational outcomes, but relatively few have been done to assess how to prevent 

the issue.  It has been suggested that leadership has an impact on both civility and safety 

climate (McGonagle, Walsh, Kath& Morrow, 2014). 



5 

  

Consequently, positive leader behaviours have been demonstrated to play vital roles 

in enhancing safety at the workplace (Christian et al., 2009, Nahrgang, Morgeson, Hofmann 

2011). Positive leader behaviour can help in explaining the role of leadership with respect to 

the health and safety practices of workers. Positive leader behaviours such as ethical 

leadership require additional attention as it has been reasoned that subordinates’ perceptions 

of ethical leadership are related with positive outcomes of followers (Brown & Trevino, 

2006). Ethical leadership is thus an antecedent of safety behaviour and is likewise related to 

respectful treatment (Chughtai, 2015). 

Ethical leadership is defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct 

through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct 

to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision-making” (Brown, 

Trevino & Harrison, 2005; p. 120). This description suggests that ethical leaders’ behaviours 

serve as role-modelling behaviour for subordinates because their conduct is recognised as 

reasonable and acceptable. In the same breath ethical leaders transmit and justify the 

decisions and actions they take to subordinates (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Such leaders 

aspire to persistently operate in accordance to ethical dictates in the organisation by laying 

down ethical standards and enforcing them through rewards and punishment (Minkes, Small 

& Chatterjee, 1999). They integrate ethical consideration when taking decisions. Ethical 

leaders take into account the ethical ramifications of their actions and most importantly aim 

to settle on acceptable decisions. Ethical leadership is therefore placed among positive 

leadership behaviours (Brown & Trevino, 2006).   

 The attention of mangers and scholars in the contemporary years has focused on ethics 

management (Trevino & Brown, 2005). Ethical leadership elicits desired outcomes for 

subordinates and organizations which are manifested in perceived leaders’ effectiveness, job 

satisfaction and higher commitment and reporting of problems (Brown et al., 2005). The 



6 

  

standards necessary for assessing ethical leadership behaviour include individual values, 

types of influence used, freedom of choice, conscious intentions, stage of moral development, 

and application of ethical and unethical behaviour (Yukl, 2006). Leaders are the prime 

influencers of ethical behaviour in organisations (Hitt, 1990). It is therefore their duty to 

establish codes of conducts that regulate the behaviour of employees at work (Bennis & 

Nanus, 1985). 

If safety culture or ethics of organizations are accurately assessed it can guide the future 

prediction of the effect of safety outcome. As a result, it affords the opportunity to plan cost 

effective safety policies and interventions (Freiwald, 2013). Organisations with occupational 

safety and health and management systems (OSH-MS) produce better records in terms of 

safety and productivity compared to organisations that lack such systems.  

 

1.2  Statement of the Problem 

Unlike developed countries where tremendous progress have been made in enhancing the 

safety and health of workers by lessening the problem of work-related injuries-, developing 

countries and transition economies are saddled with  high injuries and illness risks at work 

(Takala, Hämäläinen, Nenonen, Takahashi, Chimed-Ochir, & Rantanen, 2017). Africa is the 

second highest contributor of global work-related mortality (Hämäläinen et al., 2017; ILO, 

2017) and Ghana is not an exception. 

According to ILO modelled estimates Africa is the only region where the labour force 

participation rate is anticipated to rise in the upcoming years (ILO, 2018; ILOSTAT, 2018). 

Most of this labour will end up in the manufacturing sector with the increasing drive and 

trend towards industrialisation. This rise is the most notable for Africa with a projected 

growth of 8 percent (from 10% to 18%) of the world’s labour force between 1990 and 2030. 



7 

  

This therefore reflects an upswing from the fourth to the second largest region in terms of 

global workforce (ILO, 2018). 

The industrial sector in Ghana is steadily progressing and this is evidenced in the growth 

and expansion of the industrial sector. The government of Ghana currently intend to roll out a 

massive and ambitious policy initiative of building one factory in every district in the country 

under the one district one factory (1D-1F) program. The objective is to grow Ghana beyond 

aid and aim towards industrialization albeit in collaboration with some private sector 

engagement (Baafi, 2017). The expansion of the industrial sector exposes a great number of 

employees to numerous workplace health and safety related hazards (Asumeng, Asamani, 

Afful & Agyemang, 2015). 

 However, the health and wellbeing of workers in the country especially industrial 

workers is still a major cause of concern. The Labour Department (LD) for instance reported 

a total of 29, 277 cases over a 9-year period (from 2000 to 2008) while the Department of 

Factories Inspectorate (DFI) was notified of 5, 808 cases over a 23-year period from 1985 to 

2007 (Oppong, 2011). At present, contrary to the requirement of the ILO convention number 

155 (1981), there is a lack of a well-integrated national occupational health and safety 

instrument to address issues of safety and wellbeing of workers in Ghana. 

The manufacturing sector in Ghana continues to record high rate of accidents. Labour 

force survey (2015) reported 69,874 occupational injuries in the manufacturing industry in 

Ghana leading to an average of 14 days lost per injury. The manufacturing sector involves 

jobs that require physical labour and employees are also faced with realistic probability of 

injuries and other work-related safety issues. Workers in the manufacturing sector are 

exposed to occupational hazards, risks and injuries (Gyekye et al., 2012; Puplampu & 

Quartey, 2012). Also, the undertakings in the manufacturing industry suggest the sector has 



8 

  

not fully learned from previous accidents as it continuous to adopt reactive approaches and 

rather than proactive ones (Renier, 2017). 

Again, some researchers report that these workers usually find themselves working in an 

unsafe environment and are mostly emotionally and physically exhausted (Amponsah-

Tawiah & Mensah, 2016; Leung, Liang & Olomolaiye, 2016; Smith, Karsh, Carayon & 

Conway, 2003). Activities in the iron and steel processing industry for instance expose 

employees to various forms of risks and unsafe behaviours. Moreover, as a result of low 

capital, many manufacturing industries are unable to invest in modern and safe equipment 

(Rankin, Söderbom & Teal, 200b6). Hence, manufacturing workers are vulnerable to safety 

related issues which may define the manner in which they conduct themselves and perceive 

safety at the workplace.  

Nevertheless, the role of organisational relationship and its possible impact on safety 

among these employees have not been properly assessed. Organisational relationship defines 

employees’ relationships with colleagues, supervisors and the organisation (Lee & Yu, 2011). 

This is despite the prevalence of deviant behaviours/incivility and its adverse effect on 

employees, (Amponsah-Tawiah, & Annor, 2017; Pearson & Porath, 2009; Ohemeng & Adu-

Brobbey, 2018) sparse studies have been conducted on how incivility can impact on the 

safety practices and behaviours of workers (McGonagle et al, 2014). 

Furthermore, research on minor incivility behaviour has relatively seen less attention; 

preliminary studies indicate incivility has an impact on workers (Martin & Hine, 2005). A 

report by Porath and Pearson (2013) suggests as high as 98 percent of workers have 

experienced incivility, with 50 percent going through such demeanour at least every week at 

work. It is estimated that the monetary cost of experiencing incivility is $14,000 per 

employee annually, as a result of delays in projects and cognitive disruption from work 

(Pearson & Porath, 2009). These figures are disturbing as they show the detrimental effect of 



9 

  

incivility on employees and organisations in which they work. Moreover, the human costs 

endured by workers who are exposed to incivility at work are quite serious. They may, for 

example be apprehensive, attempt to stay away from the instigator, pull back from work, and 

even take their dissatisfactions out on others at the work (Porath & Pearson, 2013). 

Research has disclosed workplace incivility to be a mundane and costly problem for 

organisations, of which Ghanaian institution specifically manufacturing cannot be exempted. 

Empirical studies indicate a prevalence of deviant behaviours/incivility in Ghanaian 

organisations. (Amponsah-Tawiah, & Annor, 2017; Ohemeng & Adu- Brobbey, 2018) It 

costs organizations needless money (Keenan & Newton, 1985) and time (Gardner & Johnson, 

2001). These are types of counterproductive behaviours at work that can negatively affect 

employees, customers and the organisations. 

 Despite the increasing rate of incivility at the workplace (Pearson & Porath, 2005), 

sparse studies have been conducted on how incivility can affect the safety practices and 

behaviours of workers (McGonagle et al, 2014). Research on workplace safety has centred on 

finding individual characteristics, such as personality traits or behaviours that are related with 

accident proneness (Neal & Griffin, 2006). There is the need to change this trend and find 

new insights into how workplace social constructs such incivility affect the safety behaviours 

of Ghanaian workers especially those in some high risk industries within the manufacturing 

sector.  Also, there is constricted information of the effect of leadership styles on safety 

outcomes (Clarke, 2013). The interest in leadership has risen considerably but only a minute 

portion of the research has concentrate on leadership in a safety context and its prediction of 

workplace safety outcomes (Barling et al., 2003; Zohar, 2002). 

 

 

                 



10 

  

1.3 Aims of the Study 

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between workplace incivility and 

safety behaviour among manufacturing workers. The study also seeks to explore the 

moderating effect of ethical leadership in this relationship. Specifically, the study seeks; 

1. To examine the relationship between workplace incivility (co-worker and supervisor 

incivility) and safety behaviour. 

2. To find out which of the sub-dimensions of incivility (co-worker and supervisor) will 

be a stronger predictor of safety behaviour. 

3. To examine the moderating effect of ethical leadership on the relationship between 

workplace incivility and safety behaviour.  

4. To examine the mediating role of safety climate on the relationship between workplace 

incivility and safety behaviour. 

 

1.4 Relevance of the Study 

The focus on occupational safety over the last 100 years has contributed significantly to 

saving lots of lives (Hoffman, Burke, Zohar, 2017). The current study is of benefit to both 

individuals and organisations as whole. Workplace Incivility requires thoughtful research and 

managerial consideration on account of its destructive impact on employees’ and 

organisations (Cortina et. al 2001). Experienced co-worker and supervisor incivilities are 

prevalent forms of mistreatment in workplaces. 

The study provides empirical evidence of antecedents of safety which are often 

overlooked but in reality, are expressed in various forms and potentially have adverse impact 

on workers and organisations as a whole. The study thus will add to the safety literature by 

exploring relatively less examined contextual variable like incivility (counter-productive 



11 

  

behaviour) in the workplace and its effects on safety on employees’ working in the 

manufacturing industry and similar hazardous organisations in Ghana. Workplace incivility is 

pervasive and manifests in organisational structures where there is reasonable level of 

interaction amongst workers. This will add to the knowledge and information about the 

perception of safety and its effect on safety behaviours and practices.  

The findings from this study serve as a guide policy makers and key industry players in 

the manufacturing industry as well as other high-risk sectors to formulate effective preventive 

programs and interventions related to safety at the workplace. Also, the role of leadership 

behaviour in handling both incivility and safety is highlighted. The study gives an 

appreciation of how management commitment to safety, positive leadership behaviour and 

ethical climate can mitigate counterproductive behaviours and concomitant safety outcomes. 

Consequently, stakeholders of different sectors of the economy especially those in some high 

risk sectors such as manufacturing, construction, oil and gas, health etc. can acquire 

necessary insights on how to enhance the general level of safety practices and lessen 

workplace deviance. 

 

1.5 Outline of the Thesis 

This thesis is made up of five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction, which details the 

background to the study, statement of the research problem, aims and objectives and the 

relevance of the study. 

 

Chapter two focuses the literature review encompassing of the enquiry of key concepts of the 

study, theoretical framework as well as review of related studies germane to the study 

variables. 

 



12 

  

Chapter three constitutes the methodology used for the study. The research design, 

population, sample and sampling procedure, the measures of data collection and ethical 

considerations are detailed in this chapter. 

 

Chapter four covers the results section. It presents the preliminary  analysis and infernetial 

analysis used in testing stated hypothesis. 

The fifth chapter constitutes   the discussion of the findings. It also covers the limitations, 

theoretical and practical implications, recommendations and conclusion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



13 

  

CHAPTER TWO 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter present a theoretical framework containing theories that explain the 

concepts under investigation and also includes a detailed review of studies related to the 

study. It provides a theoretical background on workplace incivility, ethical leadership and 

occupational safety as well as a comprehensive review of studies related to the present 

research. The chapter concludes with hypotheses, conceptual framework and operational 

definitions of key terms used. 

2.2 Theoretical Framework 

The concentration of research efforts on workplace incivility, ethical leadership and 

occupational safety has led to the building of a considerable amount of theories that explain 

these phenomena. Therefore, the theoretical basis of this study is highlighted in this section. 

For the purpose of this current study, two relevant theories are examined: social learning 

theory and social exchange theory, which serve as the framework within which the results of 

the study are explicated. 

 

2.2.1 Social Exchange Theory (SET)  

 

Social exchange theory is a prominent theory with regards to workplace relationships. 

(Molm, Peterson & Takahashi, 1999). The theoretical underpinning for civility laying the 

foundation for safety is grounded on the social exchange theory. Social exchange theory 

(Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) postulates that people evaluate possible 

benefits and costs of social relationships, and eventually seek to increase beneficial part and 

lessen the costs. Costs denote economic exchanges as well as social exchanges (Blau, 1964). 



14 

  

Social exchanges work to form “enduring social patterns” (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 

2005; p. 882). The mechanisms along which social exchange relations are channelled 

encompass perceived organizational support, team support, supervisory support, leader-

member exchange and trust (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Zohar (2010) gives extra help to 

this thought by affirming that additional safety climate perceptions are frequently the 

consequence of social exchange relationships between superiors and subordinates. Civility is 

therefore an additional mechanism along which reciprocity is created. When dealt with in a 

respectful manner, it would produce a reciprocity norm for safety (McGonagle, Walsh, Kath, 

& Morrow, 2014). When employees get the sense that they are dealt with respectfully, they 

are influenced to respond and adhere to safety directives. Also, at the point when supervisors 

are of the impression that they have been treated respectfully, they have the inclination of 

reciprocating by providing support for the safety of workers.  

Thus, workplace incivility may be understood in the context of social exchange 

theory. Managers, whether deliberate or not, lay down the marker for civility at the 

workplace (Pearson & Porath, 2009). In workplaces where it is definite that the execution of 

task and handling of others are not regarded as distinct entities, workers will feel more 

assured that management is effectually upholding a civil work setting (Sutton, 2007). If 

positive norms for civility are perceived by employees, which emanates from proactivity of 

management in keeping a civil work environment (such as, by modelling civility, giving 

reward for respect, penalising incivility; Porath & Pearson, 2013), social exchange theory 

spells out that there is an inclination to reciprocate toward safety-supportive behaviours of a 

leader by showing forth safety behaviours (Hofmann et al., 2003). As such acts of incivility 

may point to a shortcoming on the part of management to maintain a civil workplace.  

Also, to appreciate ethical leadership, Brown et al., (2005) suggested the social 

exchange theory as the basis for explaining past history and outcomes. The theory explains 



15 

  

why some leader characteristics and situational factors are associated with followers’ 

perception of a leader as one who is ethical. The theory explains why employees have the 

inclination to reciprocate in good ways when they perceive their supervisors are ethical. 

When employees feel their supervisors are fair in their judgement, engage them in the 

decision-making process and have their interest at heart, they will feel the need to put more 

energy in activities that yield creative concepts in order to reciprocate the gesture they receive 

from their supervisors. 

Social exchange theory however lacks detailed information with respect to various 

exchange rules (Cropanzano & Marie, 2005). The main exchange rules discussed in the 

theory is reciprocity however some researchers have opined that a better understanding of the 

theory can be gained by assessing other exchange rules such as altruism, status consistency, 

group gain and competition (Cropanzano & Marie, 2005; Walczak, 2015). 

Relating the social exchange theory to the current study, employees, based on the 

nature of relationship that exists with their fellow colleagues and supervisors and the kind of 

treatment they receive, may be influenced to respond in like manner even with regards to 

safety related issues at the workplace. The negative effects of incivility may engender a 

negative climate for safety. Thus when treated respectfully, workers may reciprocate by 

participating or complying with all safety measures. On the other hand, incivility experienced 

by workers may also translate to less safety behaviours at work. This may come in the form 

of reduced compliance to safety or lack of participation on safety related issues on the part of 

workers. 

Specifically the safety of  employees may be compromised by not fully participating 

in safety activities such as assisting colleagues to make sure that work is performed safely. 

They may also have the inclination to work less collaboratively with other others at the 

workplace. Also, when faced with heightened incivility from supervisors, workers may be 



16 

  

resentful and drag their feet in the performance of their duties. Not collaborating or fully 

executing their mundane safety obligations as a result of umbrage from supervisors and the 

organisation at large can affect workplace safety. 

 

2.2.2. Social Learning Theory (SLT) 

 

Ethical leadership may be understood within the framework of Social learning 

Theory. The SLT, advanced by Bandura (1977, 1986), postulates that people learn behaviour 

from their environment through the process of observational learning.  Bandura (1977) 

believes that people actively process information and deliberate on the association between 

their behaviour and its consequences. 

Thus, people learn by observing the behaviours and attitudes of other people, and the 

outcomes of those behaviours (Bandura 1977). The theory explicates human conduct with 

regards to persistent and shared relations between cognitive, behavioural, and environmental 

influences. It proposes that individuals learn new forms of behaviour or suitable behaviours 

through a role modelling process, by observing that of other people (Bandura, 1977, 1986). 

When selecting models for suitable behaviour, people will probably focus and imitate 

behaviours from dependable and attractive role models. As a result of their status in 

organizations, supervisors are usually seen as legitimate mentors or models for normative 

behaviour. Aside direct observation, superiors influence their employees due to the power 

they hold to hand out rewards and punishment. 

  According to the theory, followers classify their leaders as ethical leaders when the 

said leaders are attractive and seen a credible role model. Thus, people focus and imitate the 

attitudes and behaviours of attractive and credible models since most people look beyond 

themselves for ethical direction (Kohlberg, 1969; Trevino, 1986). Also, power and status are 

attributes that augment the attractiveness of models (Bandura, 1986). Therefore since ethical 



17 

  

leaders acknowledge ethical behaviour and frown on unethical ones; they encourage their 

personnel to take part in satisfactory conduct. Aside the direct influence of modelling leader 

behaviour through rewards and punishments, social learning theory also stresses on vicarious 

learning. This is the view that individuals realize what is anticipated from them and the 

standards for conducting themselves in an appropriate not only on personal experiences but 

additionally through ‘second-hand’ learning or by the observation of other people (Bandura, 

1977, 1986). There is an indication that in today’s fast growing world where people do not 

generate ideas and products from their experiences, they rather resort to learn from the 

experiences of other people (Huber, 1998).Thus, in a team, social learning among group 

members may transpire directly or vicariously, through the experiences of others in the 

group. Leaders establish appropriate norms in groups when they act and communicate 

ethically through the use rewards and punishment to promote ethical behaviours in that sense 

unethical behaviour on the part of employees is less likely (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & 

Kuenzi, 2012) 

Some drawback of the STL is the focus on the environment as the primary determiner 

of behaviour. It is restricting to portray behaviour purely according to nature or nurture and 

efforts to do so plays down the sophistication of human behaviour. The most feasible way is 

to see human behaviour as an interaction between nature (biology) and nurture 

(environment). Understandable the SLT does not provide a holistic explanation for every 

kind of behaviour. This is mostly true when an individual has no obvious role model to look 

up to or imitate. 

In relating this theory to the current study, leadership plays a prominent role in 

organisations especially in the fulfilment of ethical standards and requirement in 

organisations. Employees learn directly or vicariously (second hand learning) by observing 

the ethical standards of others especially those at the helm of affairs. As such they are may be 



18 

  

influenced to conduct themselves in satisfactory (civil) manner and further adhere to all laid 

down safety requirement in the high-risk organisations in which they operate. Thus the 

inverse relation between incivility and safety behaviour could be strengthened by ethical 

leadership. This is because ethical behaviours are rewarded while unethical ones are 

disciplined. 

Ethical leaders create good ethical climates which discourage negative workplace 

attitude. Therefore, rude and condescending behaviours are not encouraged among workers. 

Ethical leadership rather creates vibrant work environment which may enhance safety at the 

workplace and encourage employees to uphold safety behaviours and standards. They 

encourage workers to exhibit behaviours such as working collaboratively, developing 

environments that support safety and attending safety meeting as well as complying with 

safety measures at work.   

 

 

2.3 Conceptualization of Terms 

This section explains the general overview and conceptualization of studied variable namely 

workplace incivility, ethical leadership, safety climate and safety behaviour among 

manufacturing workers. 

2.3.1 Workplace Incivility: A general overview 

Workplace incivility is a type of counterproductive or negative behaviour. It is 

defined as “low-intensity deviant workplace behaviour with an ambiguous intent to harm” 

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). These behaviours are in desecration of workplace 

norms for mutual respect. Instances of uncivil behaviour include talking down to others, 

passing disparaging remarks, and intentionally not collaborating with others (Porath & 



19 

  

Pearson, 2013). Experienced incivility denotes the level of incivility that workers perceive 

they have gone through at the hands of their colleagues or others persons at the work place 

(Blau & Andersson, 2005). 

The key definitional elements that distinguish workplace incivility from adverse 

workplace constructs or behaviours are the intensity of behaviour (low intensity compared to 

aggression, bullying and violence) and intention to cause harm (ambiguous rather than clearly 

diagnosable). Instances of low intensity behaviours comprise snubbing or verbally 

condescending co-workers while ambiguity of intent is the lack of ability of the target, 

onlookers, or instigator to judge whether harm was planned (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; 

Cortina et al., 2001). Thus, according to Namie (2003), incivility is a type of organizational 

disturbance that could be rated as less severe (from 1 to 3) compared to bullying (from 4 to 9) 

and homicide (10) on a 10-point scale. 

Also, another differential factor that sets incivility apart from adverse leadership 

concepts such as abusive supervision is related to the source of the behaviour. Incivility may 

be perpetuated by co-workers and not only by persons in high management or supervisory 

position. Therefore, in the present study, supervisor incivility and co-worker workplace 

incivility are assessed. Majority of research on incivility seeks participants’ views on the 

frequency with which they experienced uncivil behaviour from supervisors or co-workers 

with a specific time frame (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Lim, Cortina & Magley, 2008). 

According to Schilpzand, De Pater and Erez (2016) workplace incivility can be 

grouped into three distinct, but interrelated areas, namely, experienced incivility, witnessed 

incivility, and instigated incivility. Experienced incivility examines the feelings, thoughts, 

behaviours, and other correlates of workers who are the target of uncivil behaviour at the 

workplace. Witnessed incivility deliberates these relations for witnesses of incivility at work 



20 

  

while studies on instigated incivility examine the initiators of incivility and the behaviour 

they emit towards workers. 

2.3.2 Ethical leadership: A general overview 

It has been argued by some researchers that the substance of effectual leadership is 

ethical behaviour (Brown & Trevino 2006). Ethical behaviour is an essential element in a 

couple of leadership theories, such as transformational leadership (Bass 1998; Smith, Eldrige 

& DeJoy, 2016), authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner 2005; Mirza, Isha, 2017), servant 

leadership (Greenleaf 1977), and spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003). For instance, 

transformational leadership accentuates ethical role modelling (Copeland, 2016), authentic 

leadership highlights principled decision-making (Brown & Trevino 2006), and spiritual 

leadership stresses the integrity of the leader and ethical treatment of other people (Reave, 

2005).  

Ethical leadership is defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate 

conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such 

conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decision-making” 

(Brown, Trevino & Harris., 2005, p. 120). This definition suggests that ethical leaders’ 

behaviours serve as role-modelling behaviour for subordinates because their conduct is 

recognised as reasonable and acceptable. In the same breath ethical leaders transmit and 

justify the actions they take to subordinates (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Thus ethical leaders 

aspire to persistently operate in accordance to ethical dictates in the organisation by laying 

down ethical standards and enforcing them through rewards and punishment (Michelic, 

Lipicnik, Tekavic, 2010). They integrate ethical consideration when taking decisions. Such 

leaders take into consideration the ethical ramifications of their actions and most importantly 

aim to settle on acceptable decisions. Ethical leadership is therefore placed among positive 

leadership behaviours.  



21 

  

It is just in the contemporary years that mangers and scholars have concentrated on 

ethics management (Trevino & Brown, 2005). Ethical leadership elicits desired outcomes for 

followers and organizations which are manifested in perceived leaders’ effectiveness, job 

satisfaction, high job commitment and reporting of problem (Brown et al., 2005). The 

standards necessary for assessing ethical leadership behaviour include individual values, 

conscious intentions, and freedom of choice, level of moral development, forms of influence 

used, and use of ethical and unethical behaviour (Yukl, 2006). Leaders are the primary 

influence on ethical behaviour in organisations. It is therefore their duty to establish codes of 

conducts that regulate the behaviour of employees at work. If safety culture or ethics of 

organizations are accurately assessed it can guide the future prediction of the effect of safety 

outcome. As a result it affords the opportunity to plan cost effective safety policies and 

interventions (Freiwald, 2013). 

2.3.3 Safety Behaviour 

In-depth safety research has shown that one way of studying safety outcomes in 

organisations is through safety behaviour (Amponsah-Tawiah & Adu, 2016, Cooper & 

Phillips, 2004; Lui et al., 2015). Safety behaviour is seen as actions that are adopted by 

individuals to avert feared outcomes and uphold a sense of safety. Safety participation and 

compliance were identified as sub dimensions of safety behaviour (Neal & Griffin, 2006). 

Safety participation is thus seen as actively getting involved with safety activities on the job 

in order to make sure work environment is safe. It refers to behaviours “that may not directly 

contribute to workplace safety, but they do help to develop an environment that supports 

safety” (Griffin & Neal, 2000, p. 349). Some of the activities are assisting colleagues to make 

sure work is performed safely as well as participating in safety briefings (Neal & Griffin, 

2006). Safety participation has a pronounced voluntary component that goes outside the 

definite ‘work role’ that people have within an organization (Clarke, 2013). Neal and Griffin 



22 

  

(2006) established that if workers participate in safety activities, it can result to the reduction 

in accident occurrence. 

 Correspondingly, safety compliance is conceptualized as abiding to all precautionary 

measures on the job to ensure the workplace is safe. Safety compliance is described by Neal 

and Griffin (2006, p. 947), as ‘the core activities that individuals need to carry out to maintain 

workplace safety’ and includes for instance following correct safety rules (Vinodkumar & 

Bhasi, 2010).Examples of such actions are complying with regular job procedures and putting 

on safety equipment required by practice. For many establishments the disposition of people 

towards compliance is of ethical concern (Lundgren & McMackin, 2009), as for most 

institutions it is an important issue to stabilize the necessities of the institution and the 

employees.  

Hayes, Peranda, Smecko and Trask (1998) report that workers, who perceived the 

work they do as safe, complied frequently with safety behaviours at work compared to their 

colleagues who had a poor perception of workplace safety. This spells out the importance of 

safety climate for institutions and establishments. The behaviour of workers usually varies 

from their intent with regards safety related issues. It is usually not the safety behaviour of 

the employee itself, but the defiance of safety measures and resisting partaking in events that 

could enhance the well-being of others. Consequently, the noncompliance of safety behaviour 

can directly affect the workers and their surroundings (Neal & Griffin, 2006). 

An organisation with a good safety culture is often characterised by all of it members 

feeling a joint responsibility for safety, and by the high priority placed on safety by both 

management and employees. Safety culture is a subset of the overall culture in an 

organization and an indicator of safety outcomes across industries. A good safety culture is 

characterised by members in the organisation who expect problems to happen and who strive 

to integrate safety thinking and action into all aspects of practical work (Hale, 2000). 



23 

  

 

2.3.4 Safety Climate 

Safety climate is defined as the “shared perceptions of employees about the safety of their 

work environment, and provides a background against which day-to-day tasks are performed” 

(Hahn & Murphy, 2008, p. 1047). These collective perceptions are identified from varied 

elements including board room decision making, safety norms and standards in the 

organisation, measures and practices and expectations, which operates in tandem to highlight 

organisational commitment to safety. A collection of empirical studies indicates that a 

positive relation between safety climate and safety performance (Chan, Woon & Kankanhalli, 

2005; Choudhry, Fang & Lingard, 2009). An employee perception about safety is vital 

because it is related to better observance of safe work behaviours (Zohar, 2010). Also, 

research has been relatively consistent and pointed out the relationship between safety 

climate and leadership (Hofmann et al., 2003; Zohar & Luria, 2005; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 

2008). 

In the current study safety climate is seen as the perception of workers towards safety 

at the work. Safety climate thus consist of four dimensions namely co-worker behaviour 

norms, safety feedback, management commitment and worker involvement in safety 

dimensions (Hahn & Murphy 2008). Safety climate served as a suitable concept to enhancing 

safety in the past few years (Zohar, 2010).  Safety climate characterizes the attitudes of 

people toward safety and is created by way of interaction with the environment particularly 

the safety-specific feature of the workplace setting (Weyman, Clarke & Cox, 2003). It is 

through this interactive procedure through which people develop perceptions, attitudes, and 

beliefs about organizational safety, that comes together to form the safety climate. Thus, 

safety climate provides a background for the explanation of organizational happenings and 

procedures with respect to individual and organizational safety ideals and reveals the 



24 

  

suitability of safety-related performance (Clarke, 2010). The safety climate/culture has been 

shown to be a robust leading indicator or predictor of safety outcomes across industries and 

countries (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Hofmann, 2007; Christian, Bradley, Wallace & Burke, 

2009; Zohar, 2010). 

 2.4 Manufacturing Industry in Ghana 

According to the Labour force survey (2015), the manufacturing industry is the third 

major industry of employment, engaging about 1.2 million of the currently employed in 

Ghana. The Ghana Statistical Service (2015) reports that in the year 2014, jobs created by the 

industrial sector was 24,095 with 19,113 coming from the manufacturing sector. Also, the 

government’s policy of ‘One District, One Factory’ is meant to further strengthen the 

industrial base of the economy to further create more jobs in Ghana. The sector makes it fair 

share of input to the Ghanaian economy contributing 9% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).   

The manufacturing sector (about 90% centred in the Greater Accra region) is a key target 

sector in terms of foreign investment with an accumulated amount of US$2.3 billion between 

2001 and 2006(GIPC, 2007). The manufacturing sector has a diverse array of sub sectors. 

The Ghana National Commission for UNESCO report that Ghana’s most essential 

manufacturing industries comprises of aluminium smelting, agro-food processing, oil refining 

and cement. Other sub sectors consist processing of wood and metals, production of plastics, 

glass, textile, beverages, chemical and pharmaceuticals. Sustainable Development Action 

Plan (2010) reports aluminium smelting, sawmills, agro processing, cement and breweries are 

the key activities in the manufacturing sub‐sector. 

Despite its significant contributions, manufacturing sector faced with challenges of 

their own including lack of reliable supply of affordable energy and financial difficulties 

(AGI, 2007). Also, the issue of employee health, safety and security issue is another major 

area of concern. For instance, a report from the Ghana labour department (2000) revealed that 



25 

  

the building sector accounts for the maximum rate of occupational death as well as industrial 

accidents compared to other industries.  The manufacturing sector continues to record high 

rate of accidents. Labour force survey (2015) report 69,874 occupational injuries in the 

manufacturing industry in Ghana leading to an average of 14 days lost per injury. Workers of 

manufacturing industries are continually exposed to work-related hazards, risks and injuries 

(Quartey & Puplampu, 2012; Gyekye et al., 2012).  

Activities of iron and steel firms for instance expose employees to various forms of 

risks and unsafe behaviours that could lead to incidents, injury, death, ill health or diseases. 

According to Cole (2002) falling and slipping is a major source of accidents in manufacturing 

firms. Moreover, as a result of low capital, many manufacturing industries are unable to 

invest in modern and safe equipment (Rankin et al., 2006). Hence, most workers in the 

manufacturing sector to safety issues. The focus of safety research within these kinds of 

industries has revealed that many of these work environments are particularly precarious and 

harmful to the safety and health of employees (Smith, Karsh, Carayon & Conway, 2005).  

 

2.5 Review of Related Studies 

This subsection gives account of previous studies conducted in connection with the 

variables under study. The purpose is to bring to light what knowledge and ideas have been 

established on the topic by other researchers. The section reviews some studies on the 

different ways in which workplace incivility, ethical leadership and workplace safety have 

been researched in relation to the present study.  

2.5.1 Workplace incivility and Safety  

Several studies have been carried out on negative workplace behaviours with findings 

indicating adverse effects of such behaviours on individuals (e.g., Adam & Webster, 2013; 

Bunk & Magley, 2013; Cavanaugh, Campbell & Messing, 2014; Demsky, Fritz, Hammer & 



26 

  

Black, 2019, Khan & Khan 2012; Nitzshe, Ribeiro, Laneiro, 2018) and the overall 

performance of organisations(e.g., Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper & Einarsen,2011; Trepanier, 

Fernet, Austin, & Boudrias, 2016). Such behaviour akin to incivility have been linked to less 

organisational citizenship behaviours (Dalal, 2005), high turnover intentions (Arslan 

Yurumezoglu & Kocaman, 2016) and stress (Bowling & Beehr, 2006) among others.  

In a survey study comprising 800 employees from across a selection of industries, 

Porath and Pearson (2013) reported that 48% of targets deliberately lessened their work effort 

while 38% deliberately dropped their work quality. Also 66% of them experienced low job 

performance, and 78% recounted a decline in their level of commitment at work. 

Furthermore, empirical studies indicate that experiencing incivility adversely affects job 

satisfaction, psychological and physical well-being, and turnover intentions (Lim et al., 2008; 

Schilpzand et al., 2016). Likewise, it has been proven that merely witnessing incivility can 

lead to lower commitment, reduced job satisfaction, burnout, and high turnover (Miner-

Rubino & Cortina, 2004). Porath and Erez (2009) for instance found out that either 

experiencing or witnessing incivility led to the reduction in task performance, level of 

creativity, and helping behaviour. Also, incivility experiences is found to predict incivility 

perpetration and that males are more likely exhibit uncivil behaviour when their institution 

assents insolence (Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes-Farrel & Magley, 2014) 

Some studies have been undertaken to find the prevalence of workplace incivility 

among contemporary workers. A study by Ohemeng & Adu-Brobbey (2018) was conducted 

about incivility in organisations from the Ghanaian perspective. They sought to examine the 

different forms of incivility and their impact on performance. Interviews were used to elicit 

information from workers who were purposely sampled from different organisations in the 

Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. The finding suggests incivility was prevalent and the most 



27 

  

common uncivilized behaviours at the workplace include: insulting, snubbing, shouting at 

others, gossiping, making cheeky comments looking meanly at others, not greeting 

colleagues, the use of abusive language, banging doors on others, and deliberately ignoring 

someone. Also, respondents identified absenteeism, abuse, sexual harassment, strain in 

interpersonal relationships and uncivilized attitudes as related to incivility at the workplace. 

Overall it was deduced that incivility is extremely costly to organisations in Ghana as it 

affects performance and creativity as well as having damaging repercussions for customers 

and citizens alike. The study however failed to highlight the specific sectors of the workforce 

that was used for the study. 

A body of recent studies have focused on demonstrating the links between 

interpersonal treatment at work and safety. Consequently, some researchers have found 

associations between workplace incivility and safety at the workplace. Incivility has been 

found to be a precursor to a continuum of antisocial acts among clinical nursing teachers 

(Hunt & Marini, 2012). Haines, Stringer, and Duku (2007) carried out a study amongst nurses 

to examine the effect of safety climate and incivility on specified work-related practices and 

procedures. Results from 87 surveyed operating room nurses indicated that incivility was 

related to poor safety climate and lower practice of safe procedures. Specifically, there was 

infrequent use of safe and recommended operating room practices. However, no theoretical 

explanation was given for the relationship between incivility with safety climate and 

observed safety behaviours.  

More so, Sabbath and Colleagues (2014) in a research study found that experience to 

verbal abuse at work had an association with healthcare worker injuries. A survey was 

conducted among 1,497 health care workers in Boston (USA). Self-report measures were 

used to assess exposure to workplace abuse. The results point out that exposure to abuse may 

be a risk factor for injuries amongst workers in the health care sector. Additionally, 



28 

  

McGonagle, Childress, Walsh and Bauerle (2016) in related study examined how civility 

norms could strengthen management commitment to safety and employees’ safety behaviour, 

safety motivation and injures. 290 working adults involved in hazardous jobs provided survey 

data with findings indicating that civility norms (absence of workplace incivility) facilitated 

the association between management commitment to safety and employee safety behaviour 

(safety compliance and safety participation). 

A cursory look at the literature also revealed contradictory finding for the relationship 

between gender and experienced incivility. Lim and Lee (2011) found that as compared to 

women, men reported higher frequency of experiencing incivility whereas Cortina et al.  

(2001, 2013) discovered that women reported more cases of incivility than men. A study by 

Reio & Sanders-Reio (2011) to investigate the frequency with which employees were the 

target of supervisor and co-worker incivility reported that that females had experienced more 

co-worker incivility and males had experienced more supervisor incivility. 

            Workers with high perceptions of job insecurity and displeasure (in this case with 

incivility) have portrayed lower safety motivation and compliance, and subsequently, higher 

rate of job related injuries and accidents (Gyekye, 2005). Likewise, previous studies have 

demonstrated a positive association between physical aggression and workplace injuries          

(Miranda et al., 2011; Nixon, 2011; Yang, 2009). Taking a sample of workers from an 

Agricultural institute in the USA, Demsky (2015) reported that workplace incivility (a form 

of workplace aggression) was related with a decline in safety compliance and an increase in 

job-related accidents and injuries. Farrell et al. (2006) in a study involving a sample of 2407 

nurses in Australia found that among the participants who had experienced aggression, over 

two-thirds reported that it often or intermittently contributed to the potential of making 

mistakes or affecting their productivity. 



29 

  

The extant literature therefore suggests an adverse relationship between incivility and 

workplace safety therefore necessitating the current investigation to either confirm or 

disconfirm earlier findings. 

2.5.2 Sources of Incivility at the workplace: Co-worker and Supervisor incivility 

Many studies on workplace incivility have lumped supervisor and co-workers 

together. Comparatively, little is relatively known with respect to outcomes to incivility from 

different sources with literature revealing contradictory evidence. Schilpzand et al           

(2014, p. 65) opines that supervisory uncivil behaviour could be more harmful than co-

worker incivility. This is because workers or victims of such behaviours rely on their 

superiors for evaluation and rewards. Consequently, victims of such incivility may presume 

that such uncivil behaviour may generalize and carry along other unfavourable events. 

Comparably co-worker incivility may be more detrimental than customer incivility, because 

workers may face an uncivil co-worker over and over again. These expectations are backed 

by indirect support from a meta-analysis study on the workplace aggression (in the forms of 

bullying, aggression, victimization, interpersonal conflict, abusive supervision and incivility) 

from different committers (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). 

Some studies have examined the occurrence of co-worker and supervisor incivility 

separately and the effectiveness of civility intervention (Leiter et al., 2011, 2012; Spence                                                       

Laschinger et al., 2012). These studies reported higher levels of co-worker incivility 

compared to supervisor incivility after interventions took place. Work by Bruk-Lee and 

Spector (2006) also indicated that conflicts with supervisors or co-workers have different 

consequences. Whereas conflict with supervisors was likely to lead to counterproductive 

work behaviours directed towards the organisation that of co-workers was more likely to be 

directed towards individuals. This rational when related the study of workplace incivility 

presupposes that incivility from a supervisor may lead to lower job satisfaction while 



30 

  

incivility emanating from a co-worker may incite target to involve in more withdrawal 

behaviours (in this case low level of safety participation or non-compliance to safety). An 

empirical study was carried out by Reio and Sanders-Reio (2011) to investigate the frequency 

with which workers in the United States were targets of supervisor and co-worker incivility. 

The findings of the study indicated that both forms of incivility negatively predicted safety. 

Precisely, co-worker incivility was found to be more powerful in predicting safety 

engagement while supervisor incivility was closely associated with availability engagement. 

Holm, Torkelson and Backstrom (2015) found experienced incivility from co-workers to be 

directly related to negative outcomes such as poor psychological well-being, low job 

satisfaction and turnover intentions. 

 However, a study by Nitzshe, Ribeiro and Laneiro (2018) investigated the effect of 

workplace incivility on employee wellbeing among workers in the hospitality industry. The 

results suggested that supervisor incivility was substantially common than co-worker 

incivility; however supervisor and co-worker incivility were positive and significantly 

predicted emotional exhaustion and cynicism, which is a key component of burnout. Also 

supervisor incivility strongly predicted emotional exhaustion while cynicism was strongly 

predicted by co-worker incivility. 

2.5.3 Safety climate as mediator between workplace incivility and safety behaviour  

Several researchers have placed a lot of attention on workers’ perception of safety at 

the workplace (Zohar, 2010; Gyekye and Salminen, 2009). Civility is a mechanism through 

with reciprocity is generated (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). When workers are dealt with 

respectfully, they may be influenced to adhere to safety directives due to an enhanced or 

better perception they may have generated at the workplace (Porath & Pearson, 2013). 

McGonagle, Walsh, Kath, and Morrow (2014) examined perceptions of civility norms (i.e. 

absence of workplace incivility) to perceptions of safety climate and safety outcomes. Two 



31 

  

samples made up of full-time mechanical workers (635) and part time employees of medium-

sized grocery stores (1069) were sampled.  The results suggested an indirect relation between 

civility and safety behaviours of workers and injuries through different facets of safety 

climate. Management and co-safety climate where the specific psychosocial safety climate 

dimensions used to explore this relationship. However, a more comprehensive study 

inculcating other dimensions such as competence and safety system could be effectively 

explored to examine safety climate and civility (Flin, Mearns, O’Connor, & Bryden, 2000). 

Several empirical studies on safety research have highlighted an association between 

safety climate and safety behaviours among workers (Griffin & Neal, 2000; Neal, Griffin, & 

Hart, 2000; McGonagle et al, 2014, Zohar, 2002).  A study by Sussana et al (2013) reports 

that safety climate has a causal effect on workers safety behaviour. Also, Garcia and Canosa 

(2004) opined that safety climate is strongly linked with the safety behaviour of workers. 

This study was supported by finding of Amponsah-Tawiah and Adu (2016) who in a related 

study discovered that employees who perceive safety communication, safety systems and 

training positively where likely to adhere to safety rules and measures than willingly 

participate in safety activities. Likewise, Tholen, Pousette and Torner (2013) studied the 

association between conducive environment, psychosocial conditions and safe acts among 

industrial workers. Finding indicated safe environment predicted the display of safety 

behaviour. Therefore, this is suggestive that an appreciation the psychological and social 

conditions at work can affect the perception of workers which can translate into positive 

safety attitudes and behaviours.  

There is an established association between safety climate and employee safety 

compliance and participation, and subsequent association to accident involvement (Zohar, 

2010). The overall observation is that safety climate directly impacts safety behaviour, which 

then directly affects to safety outcomes, such as accidents and injuries (e.g., Clarke, 2010; 



32 

  

Christian et al., 2009; Pousette et al., 2008). Managerial trust and perceived safety climate 

has been reported to mediate the association between high performance work systems and 

safety incidents (Zacharatos et al., 2005). A meta-analysis study by Clarke’s (2010) affirms 

the association between safety climate and safety performance, but weaker general support 

for the association between safety climate and frequency of accidents. Other researchers have 

reported a positive correlation between safety climate and safety performance (Hofmann and 

Stetzer, 1998), compliance with safety management polices (Probst and Brubaker, 2001), 

involvement in citizenship behaviours (Gyekye and Salminen, 2005; Lee et al., 2007) 

Positive safety climate thus lead to the development of favourable work attitudes 

among employees. A study by DeJoy et al., 2010; Gazica and Spector (2016) was conducted 

using 368 employees from various industries in the US. In the study safety climate, violence 

prevention climate, and civility climate were individually developed and associated to 

domain-specific hazards at the workplace, though all three were created to enhance 

employees’ physical and psychological safety of employees. The results indicate that the 

three climate domains had a similar predictive influence on most workplace hazards. Also, 

Ottinot (2008) advanced a scale for civility climate centred mainly on the safety climate and 

violence prevention climate literatures. Safety climate may thus indirectly affect the 

relationship between incivility and safety behaviour. In this regard the current study 

postulates that safety climate will mediate the relationship between workplace incivility and 

safety behaviour. 

 

2.5.4 Ethical leadership as moderator between workplace incivility and safety behaviour  

   It has been argued that leadership has an impact on civility (Porath, 2010). It is 

asserted by scholars that general climate of informality makes a contribution to the high 

preponderance of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Ethical leaders reward ethical 



33 

  

behaviour and discipline unethical ones, and thus influence their personnel to take part in 

satisfactory conducts through social learning process (Bandura, 1986). Employees 

experiencing lower unsatisfactory conducts may exhibit desirable levels of participation and 

compliance to safety measures. Thus ethical leadership may therefore influence the strength 

of the inverse relationship between incivility and safety behaviour. Building on prior 

knowledge that workers who have ethical leaders are less likely to indulge in deviant and 

unethical practices, Taylor & Pattie (2014) assessed the moderating roles of follower 

personality on ethical leadership and workplace incivility. Using the educational sector as the 

research setting, data was taken from workers in a public school in U.S. Results indicated that 

personality (conscientiousness) may moderate the relationship between ethical leadership 

workplace incivility. 

           A similar study conducted by Mayer, Kuenzi and Greenbaum (2011) explored 

the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct. A large sample consisting of 

1,525 workers and supervisors were drawn from 300 units in organisations in USA.  The 

results of the study confirmed mediation roles of ethical climate in the relationship between 

ethical leadership and employee misconduct. In a related study Walsh, Lee, Jesnsen, 

McGonagle and Samnani (2017) investigated the relationship between positive leadership 

behaviour (those related to ethical leadership and charismatic leadership) and workers’ 

experience of workplace incivility. This relationship was explored using employees and their 

co-workers as well as employees and their supervisors). Findings suggested that both ethical 

leadership and charismatic leadership were associated with experiences workers’ incivility 

through workers perception of norms for respects. Ahmad (2018) examined ethical leadership 

as an effective management strategy across two cultures specifically eastern (Austrian) and 

western (Pakistani) cultures. Results indicated a direct and indirect effect (through 



34 

  

interactional justice) of ethical leadership on workplace incivility. This is because ethical 

leaders cultivate justice at the workplace. 

There is a long-standing view that leadership influence perceptions of people at work and 

that ‘leaders create climate’ (Lewin et al., 1939). Safety leadership positively influence safety 

compliance among workers (Pibean, Doherty, Davidson, Denyer, 2015). According to a study 

by Zohar (2002) a within-group split-sample analysis of 42 work groups gave the indication 

that injury rate was predicted by constructive and transformational leadership, a facet of 

ethical leadership (Avolio, 1999). A recent study by Khan, Ahmad and Ilyas (2018) examined 

the impact of ethical leadership on organisational safety performance. Paper and pencil 

questionnaire were used to collect data from a large public telecom company in Pakistan.  

230 participants were randomly sampled. The findings of the study indicated that ethical 

leadership had an effect on organisational safety performance whilst the relationship between 

them was also mediate by safety culture and safety consciousness. In a related study, 

Chughtai (2015) examined the effect of ethical leadership on safety participation (safety 

compliance and safety participation). The study also explored job autonomy and self-efficacy 

as mediators in the relationship. Participants for the study were made up of sample of 179 full 

time doctors in a large public sector health facility in Pakistan. Findings of the study 

suggested that job autonomy and self-efficacy mediated the impact of ethical leadership on 

safety participation. Porath, Garbasi & Schorch (2015) explored the effects of civility, 

leadership and performance among workers in a bio-technology firm. Findings suggested that 

people who perceived their colleagues as civil are likely to seek such people out for work 

advice and to see them as leaders. Leadership mediated being civil and increase in 

performance including safety performance among workers at work. The review signals the 

pertinent role of leadership and in this regard the current study postulates a moderating role 



35 

  

of ethical leadership in the relationship between incivility and safety behaviour among 

workers. 

In general, these studies explain the association between workplace incivility, ethical 

leadership, and safety climate and safety behaviour. 

 

2.6 Rationale of Study 

With the increasing rate of technology, globalisation and contemporary nature of jobs, 

safety research has attracted a lot of interest and has led generally to improvement in the 

overall health and safety needs of employees. However sparse studies have been carried on 

deviant behaviours and their safety implications at the workplace. There is a gap in research 

safety research with respect to how organisational relationship and important workplace 

social constructs like workplace incivility impacts on the safety of workers                

(McGonagle et al, 2014). Studies conducted in the area have been predominantly carried out 

in western organizational context with high concentration in the health sector. Consequently, 

there is gap in research particularly in the Ghanaian setting.  Thus, within the confines of the 

Ghanaian work environment this study seeks to examine the influence and role of these key 

variables in other high risk occupations such as industrial workers in the manufacturing 

sector. Also, the study answers the call for research to explicitly measure leadership 

constructs that may influence both civility norms and safety at work (McGonagle, 2014). 

Future research is warranted to investigate the links between incivilities at the workplace and 

safety outcomes and to assess the efficacy of civility interventions on these outcomes. This 

present study forms part of an endeavour to redress this situation. 

 

 

 



36 

  

2.7 Statement of Hypotheses 

1. There will be a significant negative relationship between (i) co-worker incivility and (ii) 

supervisor incivility and safety behaviours. 

2. Co-worker incivility will be a stronger predictor of safety behaviour than supervisor 

incivility. 

3. Ethical leadership will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and safety 

behaviours. 

4. Safety climate will mediate the relationship between workplace incivility and safety 

behaviours. 

2.8  Conceptual framework 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: A conceptual Model describing the relationship among study variables 

Workplace Incivility 

Co-worker 

Incivility 

Supervisor 

Incivility 

Ethical Leadership 

 

Safety Behaviour 

Safety Climate 



37 

  

The model (Figure 1) is a summary of the hypothesized mapped relationships between the 

independent, moderating, mediating and dependent variables. 

 

  

2.9 Operational definition of terms 

Workplace incivility: low-intensity deviant behaviour with disrespectful treatment from 

supervisors and co-workers at the workplace. 

Ethical leadership: demonstration of ethical standards and procedures in management and 

decision making 

Safety climate: employees’ perception of safety practices and management at the workplace. 

Safety behaviour: refers to actions or behaviours that are exhibited at the workplace to 

promote the health and safety of workers and organisation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



38 

  

CHAPTER THREE 

 METHODOLOGY 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter gives a description of how the study was carried out and the research 

methodology used in the study. It provides information on the population, sample, the 

sampling techniques, the research instruments used for the study and their psychometric 

properties. The chapter also details the processes used by the researcher during data 

collection for the study and the ethical issues observed. 

3.2 Design  

The nature of research and variables of interest informs the particular methodological 

approaches deemed suitable in psychological research. This study utilised a quantitative 

cross-sectional survey research design. This research design is employed in studies to 

ascertain any form of association that exists among constructs and to assess the strength of 

such relationship. Using this form of research design, information was gathered from a 

sizeable number of participants using a set of instruments with pre-set questions with fixed 

responses at one point in time (Creswell, 2012). This was considered to be appropriate 

because the study was aimed at determining the impact of different levels of the independent 

variable (workplace incivility) on the dependent variable (safety behaviours) among 

employees (Brewerton & Milward, 2001). Also, there was no direct manipulation of the 

research variables. The researcher only relied on the self-report information of the employees 

on the research variables.   

 

 



39 

  

3.3 Population 

This study was carried out in the manufacturing sector amongst producers of building 

materials and aluminium products in Accra. Thus, the target population for the study was 

made up employees working in manufacturing companies under consideration. Roofing and 

aluminium processing companies in the manufacturing sector were deemed suitable due to 

the nature of work which typically involves some degree of physical labour and a realistic 

possibility of occupational risks and safety hazards.  

  According to the Ghana Labour force survey (2015), the manufacturing industry is the 

third major industry of employment, engaging about 1.2 million of the currently employed. 

Despite its role in reducing unemployment and contributing 6.7% to the country’s economy 

in the form of gross domestic product (Ghana Statistical Service, 2015), a report from the 

Ghana labour department (2000) revealed that the building sector accounts for the maximum 

rate of occupational death as well as industrial accidents compared to other industries.  

3.4 Sample and Sampling Technique 

Participants of the study were made up of industrial workers from the manufacturing 

sector. A total of 173 workers from five manufacturing companies in Accra were used for the 

study. A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed. However, 182 were retrieved. Upon 

further examination of the returned questionnaires, nine (9) of them were removed from the 

data due to uncompleted responses. This resulted in 173 valid questionnaires for analysis. 

This represents a response rate of 86.50%. The sample size of 173 was considered 

appropriate for regression analysis. This is based on the formula put forward by Tabachnick 

and Fidell (2007) for the determination of a minimum sample size, N>50+8M, where M is 

the number of predictor variables and N is the sample size. The present study has two main 



40 

  

independent variable, co-worker and supervisor incivility and from the above formula, a 

sample size of 66 should be the very minimum required. Based on the above deductions, a 

sample size of 173 was deemed adequate for the study.   

Purposive sampling technique was used in this study. The purposive sampling 

technique involves the selection of research participants based on certain relevant 

characteristics. According to Patton (1990) information-rich cases are those from which a lot 

of information can be surmised and aligned to the purpose of the research. Purposive 

sampling was used to identify specific companies. Afterwards, participants who were 

available and ready to participate in the study were conveniently sampled. 

The number of male participants stood at 140 (80.9%) while females were 33 (19.1%). Most 

of the respondents where single 100(57.8%). Thirty-six percent were married and the rest 

were divorced (5.8%). With respect to age majority of respondents where in the relatively 

younger as group of 18-30 (n=85, 49.1%) and 31-40 (n=67, 38.7%) compared to the older 

group; 41-50 (n=9, 5.2%) and 51 and above (n=12, 6.9%). In terms of level of education, the 

majority of the participants where high school levers (n=78, 45.1%) followed by those with 

tertiary education (n=57, 32.9%).  Most of the respondents had between one to five years of 

experience. Twenty- five percent had less than one year experience, 24.9 % (1-3 years),    

24.3 %( 3-5 years), 14.5 %( 5-10 years) and 11 %( 10 years and over). Table 1 presents a 

summary of the participants’ demographic characteristics.  

 

 

 

 



41 

  

3.5 Demographic characteristics of participants 

Table1. 

Participants’ demographic characteristics (n=173) 

Variable Frequency Percentage (%) 

Gender   

Male 140 80.90 

Female  33 19.10 

Age   

18-30 85 49.10 

31-40 67 38.70 

41-50 9 5.20 

51 and above 12 6.90 

Marital Status   

Single 100 57.80 

Married 63 36.40 

Divorced 10 5.80 

Educational Level   

J.H.S 20 11.60 

SHS/WASSCE   78 45.10 

Tertiary 57 32.90 

Other 18 10.40 

Tenure   

Less than 1 year 44 25.40 

1-3 years 43 24.90 

3-5 years 42 24.30 

5-10 years 27 14.50 

Above 10 years 19 11.00 

 

3.6 Instruments/Materials 



42 

  

A standardised questionnaire was the main instrument used for the data collection. All 

variables were assessed using standardized scales developed and used by several researchers. 

The questionnaire was made up of two sections. Section one captured the demographic 

characteristics of participants while the second section comprised scales that were used to 

assess the predictor, mediating and dependent variables. 

Detailed descriptions of the measures are provided below: 

3.6.1 Demographic variables 

This section of the questionnaire gathered information on the participants’ ages, gender, and 

marital status, level of education and tenure of work. 

3.6.2 Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS)  

Workplace incivility scale was by developed Cortina, Magley, William and Langhout 

(2001) to measure the frequency of participants' experiences of impertinent, discourteous, or 

condescending behaviours from supervisors and co-workers within the previous 12 months. 

The WIS consists of seven items referred to supervisor and co-worker-initiated incivility that 

measure the frequency with which individuals have experienced each statement. The 

perceptions of co-workers’ and supervisors’ incivility were measured distinctly as espoused 

by Smith, Andrusyszyn, and Laschinger (2010). The items are in line with the most usual 

"negative acts" at the workplace highlighted by Einarsen and colleagues such as devaluing of 

work and exertions, offensive comments, social marginalization (Einarsen, Raknes, 

Matthiesen & Hellesoy, 1994). 

Participants answered to items with a 5-point scale in the range of never (1) to always 

(5). High scores indicate high levels of experiences of co-worker and supervisor incivility. A 

sample item on the scale include: My co-worker/supervisor ‘addressed me in unprofessional 

terms, either publicly or privately’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .89 (Cortina et al, 

2001). The instrument yielded a Cronbach alpha of .94 when it was piloted for this study. It 



43 

  

yielded a reliability coefficient of .93 and .92 for co-worker and supervisor incivility 

respectively after the main study. 

 

3.6.3 Ethical leadership scale (ELS)  

The ethical leadership scale (ELS) was developed by Brown, Trevino and Harrison 

(2005). The 10-item ELS was used in assessing ethical leadership behaviour. Some of the 

items on the scale include: ‘My leader disciplines employees who violate ethical standards’, 

‘my leader conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner’ etc.  All items were scored on 

a five- point scale in the range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). High scores 

indicate a high level of ethical leadership behaviour. The scale is reliable with an original 

reported Cronbach alpha of .93). The scale yielded a Cronbach alpha of .95 when it was 

piloted for this study. For the present study a Cronbach alpha of .88 was recorded. 

 

3.6.4 Safety behaviour Scale  

The safety behaviour scale has two sub-dimensions which measures safety 

compliance and safety participation (Griffin & Neal, 2000). Safety compliance was assessed 

with the 11-item compliance with safety behaviours (CBS) scale adapted from Hayes, 

Perander, Smecko and Trask (1998). In each of the CSB items, participants were asked to 

indicate how frequently they engage in the behaviour on their present job using a scale from 1 

(‘‘Never’’) to 5 (‘‘Always’’). Higher scores indicated greater compliance with safety work 

behaviours. Three negatively worded items; 1, 8 and 9 were reversed scored.  Sample of 

items on the scale include; “I follow all safety procedures regardless of the situation I am in’, 

‘I wear safety equipment required by practice’. A study by Hayes et al (1998) reported a 

reliability coefficient of .85. Lu and Tsai (2011) report a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 for this 

scale. 



44 

  

Safety participation has six items and was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale in the 

range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores reflected greater 

participation with work related safety behaviours. Samples of items measuring safety 

participation are: ‘assist others to make sure they perform their work safely, ‘try to change the 

way the job is done to make it safer’. Cronbach alpha for the scale is suitable, α= .88 

(DeArmond et al. 2011). For the present study the scale yielded a composite Cronbach’s 

alpha of .86 with the subscales of safety compliance and participation having reliability 

coefficients of .75 and. 83 respectively. 

3.6.5 Safety climate scale. 

Safety climate was measured by the 6-item safety climate scale developed Hahn and 

Murphy (2008). The scale measures the perception about safety at the workplace. Responses 

were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale in the range of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 

(strongly agree) with high scores indicating a better perception of safety at work. Cronbach 

alpha for the scale is suitable, α= .92 .A sample item is: “The health and safety of workers is 

a high priority with management where I work”. The current study recorded a reliability 

coefficient of .74 when piloted and .80 in the main study. 

3.7 Procedure for Data Collection 

Firstly, ethical approval was sought by the researcher from the Ethics Committee for 

Humanities (ECH) of the University (ECH 032/18-19). After attaining ethical clearance from 

ECH, a letter of introduction was requested from the Department of Psychology. Upon 

receipt, a copy of the introduction letter, a copy of the certificate for ethical clearance, 

consent forms (see Appendix A) and sample of questionnaires were taken to the human 

resource managers of the selected manufacturing organizations to seek permission to take 

data from their workers. Permission was duly granted by the various institutions. A pilot 

study was conducted thereafter using thirty (participants). The researcher undertook the pilot 



45 

  

study to test for the adequacy and appropriateness of the research instruments and the 

reliability of the instruments designed for data collection. This process was needed due to the 

fact that even though these instruments have good reliability values, the Ghanaian cultural 

context and the population under study could affect the responses and consequently the 

reliability of the instruments. The assistance of the departmental heads was sought to help 

identify the targeted employees in the organizations. Afterwards different appointments were 

scheduled for the commencement of the main data collection.  

The researcher stated the purpose of the study and provision was made for 

participants