Skip to Main Content

Social Psychology and Society
2025. Vol. 16, no. 1, 89–104
doi:10.17759/sps.2025160105
ISSN: 2221-1527 / 2311-7052 (online)

Examining the Effect of Workplace Incivility on Affective Job Insecurity: Insights from Vietnam

26

T.N. Ma, H.V. Vu, T.X.A. Dao, T.K. Nguyen

PDF (ENG)
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Objective. This study examines the impact of workplace incivility from coworkers and supervisors on employees' affective job insecurity in Vietnam and explores the moderating role of collectivist value orientation.
Background. While workplace incivility negatively affects employees' psychological well-being and job security, most research has focused on Western contexts. This study addresses the gap by investigating these dynamics in Vietnam, where collectivist values and high power distance are prevalent.
Study Design. The study employs a cross-sectional design with survey data collected from employees in various Vietnamese organizations. The relationships are analyzed using hierarchical regression.
Participants. The study sample consists of 359 employees from diverse industries in Vietnam.
Measurements. Workplace incivility was measured using the Workplace Incivility Scale, affective job insecurity through a seven-item scale, and collectivist value orientation using a six-item scale.
Results. Both coworker and supervisor incivility significantly increase affective job insecurity, with supervisor incivility having a stronger effect. Collectivist value orientation moderates the relationship between coworker incivility and job insecurity but not supervisor incivility.
Conclusions. The study highlights the stronger impact of supervisor incivility on job insecurity and the role of cultural values in shaping responses to incivility, suggesting that HR practices should align with collectivist values in Vietnamese organizations.

General Information

Keywords: incivility; coworker incivility; affective job insecurity; collectivist value orientation

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2025160105

Received: 27.07.2024

Accepted:

For citation: Ma T.N., Vu H.V., Dao T.X.A., Nguyen T.K. Examining the Effect of Workplace Incivility on Affective Job Insecurity: Insights from Vietnam. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2025. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 89–104. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2025160105.

Full text

Introduction

Workplace incivility is characterized as a mild form of inappropriate workplace conduct where the individual exhibiting such behavior possesses unclear intentions to cause harm [Andersson, 1999]. Over the course of the last two decades, scholars and researchers have dedicated significant attention and effort to the examination and analysis of this behavior. Workplace incivility is attributed to having a negative nature, as it adversely impacts the work environment and interpersonal relationships among employees [Alias, 2022; Andersson, 1999; Cortina, 2001]. Various negative consequences have been demonstrated including burnout [He, 2021], emotional exhaustion [Parray, 2023], job stress [Cortina, 2021; Durmuş, 2024; Miner-Rubino, 2010], organizational citizenship behavior [Al-Romeedy, 2024; Taylor, 2012], and work engagement [Guo, 2022].
Nevertheless, the body of literature on workplace incivility continues to exhibit certain limitations. First, while there is a diversity of perpetrators of incivility [Cho, 2016; Hershcovis, 2010; Schilpzand, 2016], a majority of prior studies have explored workplace incivility without explicitly identifying the sources (e.g., coworkers and supervisors) [Chen, 2013; Durmuş, 2024; Jorgensen, 2024; Kavaklı, 2022]. To deepen our understanding of workplace incivility, researchers should investigate how the effects of incivility differ when it originates from coworkers versus supervisors [Han, 2022; Hershcovis, 2010; Schilpzand, 2016].
Second, existing studies, primarily conducted in western countries, fail to capture cultural characteristics of Asian societies [Hoang Nguyen Tran, 2023; Zhan, 2019]. Incivility is currently an important issue in Asian organizations and deserves more academic attention [Alias, 2022]. When national culture influences an individual's attitudes and behaviors, translating results from a Western context to an Asian one becomes challenging due to distinct social, cultural, and political disparities [Hoang Nguyen Tran, 2023]. Specifically, in Vietnamese organizations with higher power distance and collectivism value, employees are more inclined to accept power inequality within the hierarchical structure [Hofstede, 1980a; Truong, 2016]. This study aims to fill this gap by comparing the impact of incivility from coworkers and supervisors when linking to affective job insecurity.
The theoretical framework for this study is based on the dyadic relational perspective [Grandey, 2007; Matsumoto, 2008; Porath, 2012; Sliter, 2011] and Hofstede’s cultural framework [Hofstede, 1980a; Hofstede, 2010]. The dyadic relational perspective highlights the significance of power dynamics between the two parties when assessing the outcomes of their interaction, particularly in negative events [Grandey, 2007; Matsumoto, 2008; Porath, 2012]. This suggests that the severity of workplace incivility is influenced by the relative power of the perpetrator. In this context, we examine how supervisor incivility, which stems from a position of higher authority, may have a stronger impact on employees compared to coworker incivility which occurs between peers. In addition, collectivism, a dimension in Hofstede’s cultural framework, may play a central role in shaping employees' reactions to workplace behavior. Employees with strong collectivist values are more likely to prioritize group harmony and interpersonal relationships [Hofstede, 1980a; Hofstede, 2010] which can amplify their emotional response to incivility, thereby influencing the extent to which it contributes to job insecurity. Together, these theoretical lenses provide a robust framework for understanding how workplace incivility, influenced by both relational power dynamics and cultural values, affects affective job insecurity in Vietnamese organizations.
 

Literature review

Workplace Incivility and Job Insecurity

Scholars define job insecurity as the perceived inability to maintain desired job continuity, accompanied by concerns about job permanence and stability [Davy, 1997; Greenhalgh, 1984; van Vuuren, 1990]. It embodies the extent to which employees perceive their jobs, or crucial aspects thereof, to be under threat and feel powerless to address it [Huang G.-H, 2010; Son, 2022]. A notable differentiation among various conceptualizations of job insecurity lies in the emphasis on cognitive versus affective aspects: cognitive job insecurity pertains to the perception of the likelihood of adverse changes in one's job, such as job loss or the erosion of attractive job attributes; affective job insecurity encompasses the emotional dimensions of the job insecurity experience, including feelings of concern, worry, or anxiety about potential job loss or the loss of specific job characteristics [Naranjo, 2021]. To our knowledge, Hershcovis and colleagues stand as the sole researchers who have undertaken the primary investigation into how workplace incivility leads to job insecurity [Hershcovis, 2017]. However, this study does not differentiate between the cognitive and affective dimensions of job insecurity. Our study complements Hershcovis et al.'s work by exploring the relationship between incivility and affective job insecurity.
Coworker incivility holds the potential to significantly impact employees on a psychological level influencing their perceptions of job security. When individuals are subjected to disrespectful or rude behavior from their coworkers, it cultivates a negative work environment characterized by hostility and disrespect colleagues [Pearson, 2000]. This toxic atmosphere can evoke emotional distress, anxiety, and concern about job stability [Rodwell, 2024]. The persistence of uncivil behavior can further intensify these emotions, prompting employees to question their value and significance within the organization [Hershcovis, 2010; Hershcovis, 2017]. In addition, coworker incivility can erode trust within the workplace, exacerbating affective job insecurity. Experiencing disrespectful behavior undermines confidence in the reliability and support of coworkers, leaving employees feeling isolated and vulnerable [Hershcovis, 2010; Hershcovis, 2017]. This erosion of trust amplifies feelings of insecurity as employees grapple with uncertainty in their workplace relationships [Guo, 2022].
Hypothesis 1: Coworker incivility will be positively related to job insecurity.
Supervisor incivility extends far beyond its immediate impact, potentially setting off a chain of negative consequences such as receiving low ratings or facing disciplinary actions. Schilpzand, de Pater [Schilpzand, 2016] support this view, suggesting that uncivil behavior from supervisors might not be an isolated incident but rather a symptom of deeper issues within the organizational structure. Specifically, when individuals in positions of authority engage in uncivil behavior, it sends a clear message to the recipient that their importance within the organization is diminished and their job security may be in jeopardy. Hershcovis and Barling [Hershcovis, 2010] as well as Kivimaki, Ferrie [Kivimaki, 2005] reinforce this idea, emphasizing how supervisor incivility can create feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty among employees. Furthermore, the presence of supervisor incivility may exacerbate these feelings of insecurity by indicating broader organizational dysfunction or a lack of support from management [Hershcovis, 2017]. Employees who perceive uncivil behavior from their supervisors as a sign of organizational instability are likely to experience heightened concerns about their job stability and the potential consequences of remaining in such a work environment. This increased uncertainty significantly contributes to the development of affective job insecurity among employees, underscoring the negative impact of supervisor incivility on both organizational morale and employee well-being.
Hypothesis 2: Supervisor incivility will be positively related to job insecurity.
Because incivility often brings along other unfavorable events [Islam, 2023; Schilpzand, 2016], targets may weigh the consequence of incivility based on instigators’ relative power [Porath, 2012]. The more power the instigator has, the more ability he or she can impose disadvantages on the target which results in more adverse consequence. It is suggested that supervisors possess more power than coworkers due to their greater ability to control organizational resources or relationships [Grandey, 2010; Sliter, 2011]. Therefore, supervisor incivility may be appraised as more threat to employees, which results in higher levels of job insecurity.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: The effect of supervisor incivility on job insecurity will be greater than that of coworker incivility.
 

The Moderating Effects of Individualism–Collectivism Orientation

Individualism-collectivism (I/C), one of the dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural framework, reflects the extent to which individuals in a society prioritize group cohesion, shared goals, and mutual support over individual pursuits [Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2010]. This dimension underscores the importance of social harmony, cooperation, and interdependence within a community [Owuamalam, 2023]. Understanding the degree of collectivism within a culture provides valuable insights into social structures, decision-making processes, and interpersonal dynamics, contributing to a more nuanced comprehension of cross-cultural interactions and workplace behaviors [Ye, 2019].
While many researchers explore I/C orientation as a national cultural variable ([e.g., 19; 40; 55]), the current study consider it at the individual level. Our study contributes to the rising movement of viewing I/C orientation as an individual cultural value [Strydom, 2021; Tano, 2023]. According to Hofstede's cultural framework, individuals with high collectivism tend to identify closely with their extended families, work groups, or communities, often placing group interests above personal aspirations [Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2010]. Loyalty, cooperation, and a sense of duty to the collective are esteemed values for such individuals. In contrast, low collectivism (or individualism) indicates a greater emphasis on individualism, where personal achievements, autonomy, and individual rights take precedence [Rego, 2009].
Expanding upon established research [De Clercq, 2019; Kirkman, 2006; Zhao, 2019], individuals with a pronounced collectivist orientation are inclined to prioritize group cohesion and interpersonal harmony within organizational settings. Hofstede's cultural framework underscores this notion, suggesting that collectivist individuals are more sensitive to their organizational status and interpersonal dynamics [Hofstede, 2010]. Consequently, instances of coworker incivility may be perceived as a direct affront to their social standing and group identity [Cortina, 2022; Liu, 2022]. Thus, we posit that the impact of coworker incivility on job insecurity will be accentuated among employees with high collectivist orientation compared to those with low orientation, given their heightened sensitivity to relational dynamics and social norms [Daniels, 2014; Jaw, 2007; Lam, 2002]. The hypothesis presented here is:
Hypothesis 4: Collectivist value orientation will moderate the effect of coworker incivility on job insecurity in such a way that the effect is stronger among employees with high (vs. low) orientation.
Similarly, drawing upon the literature on collectivism and workplace behavior [Astakhova, 2015; Mulki, 2015], individuals with a strong collectivist orientation tend to accord significant importance to hierarchical harmony and deference to authority figures within organizational hierarchies [De Clercq, 2019; Ye, 2019]. Consequently, instances of supervisor incivility may be perceived as particularly injurious to their sense of security and belonging within the organizational framework [Dyne, 2000; Moorman, 1995]. Therefore, we propose that the impact of supervisor incivility on job insecurity will be more pronounced among employees with high collectivist orientation compared to those with low orientation, given their proclivity towards group cohesion and deference to authority [Hershcovis, 2010; Pearson, 2000; Porath, 2008]. The hypothesis presented here is:
Hypothesis 5: Collectivist value orientation will moderate the effect of supervisor incivility on job insecurity in such a way that the effect is stronger among employees with high (vs. low) orientation.
 

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Survey data were gathered from service personnel within Vietnamese enterprises. Prior to conducting the survey, these establishments were approached to gauge their members' willingness to participate. Employees were briefed on the study's general objectives and assured that their involvement was optional. Each organization received an email outlining the research's purpose along with a link to an online survey. This correspondence also guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality for all participants. The HR manager was tasked with assessing service staff interest in the survey to ensure voluntary participation and subsequently distributing surveys randomly among employees.
The survey invited 398 employees, with 370 responding, resulting in a 93% response rate. However, 11 responses were unusable due to missing data, resulting in a final sample of 359 employees. Among the respondents, 41% identified as male, and 93% held Bachelor’s degrees or higher. The age distribution was predominantly concentrated between 23 and 33 years, accounting for 68% of the sample. Eighteen percent of participants were aged 34 years or older while the smallest proportion was aged 22 years or younger with 14%. In terms of work experience, 47% reported 1 to 6 years, 48% reported 7 to 15 years, and only 5% reported more than 15 years.
The sample encompassed a diverse array of industries, including insurance, information technology, banking, educational services, legal services, logistics, and manufacturing, among others. The largest proportions were from the insurance sector (28%) and information technology (21%). Employing a multi-industry sampling approach aimed to mitigate contextual biases associated with any single field. Notably, all survey participants were non-managerial employees.
 

Measures

Supervisor and Coworker Incivility. The Workplace Incivility Scale [WIS; 8] was utilized to gauge the frequency of employees’ encounters with uncivil behaviors from both superiors and coworkers over the preceding six months. This scale comprises seven items, such as "made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you," "addressed you in unprofessional terms," and "paid little attention to your statements or showed little interest in your opinion." Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 5 = very often). Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0,86 for supervisor incivility and 0,91 for coworker incivility, indicating high internal consistency.
Affective Job Insecurity. Affective job insecurity was assessed using a seven-item measure developed by Huang, Lee [Huang G.-H, 2010]. An example item is "I wish I had more job security in this company." Participants provided responses on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale demonstrated high reliability, indicated by a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0,90.
Collectivist value orientation. The assessment of collectivist value orientation utilized a six-item measure developed by Patterson, Cowley [Patterson, 2006]. Participants provided responses on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For instance, participants rated items such as "Individuals should remain loyal to their group even in challenging times." The reliability of the scale was high, with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0,75.
Control variables. According to Cheng and Chan [Cheng G.H, 2008] demographic variables can influence individuals' perceptions of job insecurity. To address potential confounding factors, we integrated gender and age as control variables in our study design.
 

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive Statistics. Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables in the study. The zero-order correlations of supervisor incivility and coworker incivility with affective job insecurity were 0,36 and 0,35, respectively (both p < 0,01). Regarding the control variables, age was found to have a negative significant correlation with affective job insecurity (r = –0,19; p < 0,01).
 
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Level

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Age

30,00

5,31

 

 

 

 

 

2. Gendera

0,41

0,49

–0,07

 

 

 

 

3. Supervisor incivility

1,74

0,69

0,07

–0,13*

 

 

 

4. Coworker incivility

1,69

0,71

–0,02

–0,01

0,72**

 

 

5. Job insecurity

2,05

0,73

–0,19**

0,02

0,36**

0,35**

 

6. Collectivist value orientation

2,03

0,65

0,12*

–0,07

0,19**

0,16**

0,31**
Notes. a Gender: 1 = male; 0 = female. Degree: 4 = Master Degree; 5 = Doctorate Degree. * p < 0,05; ** p < 0,01.
 
Tests of Hypotheses
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Initially, a baseline model containing only control variables was examined. Subsequently, coworker and supervisor incivility were introduced into the model to assess their respective effects. In addition, the standardized regression coefficients were compared to evaluate the relative impact of coworker and supervisor incivility. For interpretation purposes, all independent variables, as well as the moderating variable in the subsequent step, were centered around their means.
Table 2 presents the regression results for supervisor and coworker incivility regarding affective job insecurity. Model 2 revealed positive associations between both supervisor and coworker incivility and employees' affective job insecurity (β = 0,28, p < 0,001 and β = 0,15, p < 0,05, respectively). Thus, our data supported Hypotheses 1 and 2.
To assess differences in the effects of incivility from coworkers and supervisors, we utilized standardized regression coefficients [Schwab, 2013]. As demonstrated in Model 2, the standardized regression coefficient for coworker incivility was lower than that for supervisor incivility. Therefore, our data supported Hypothesis 3.
 
Table 2
Regression Data for Supervisor and Coworker Incivility on Affective Job Insecurity

Independent and control variable

Anger

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Age

–0,19***

–0,21***

–0,23***

–0,21***

Gendera

0,01

0,04

0,06

0,04

Supervisor incivility

 

0,28***

0,24***

0,23***

Coworker incivility

 

0,15*

0,13

0,11

Collectivist value orientation (CO)

 

 

0,27***

0,26***

Interaction

 

 

 

 

Coworker incivility × CO

 

 

 

0,20**

Supervisor incivility × CO

 

 

 

0,05

R2

0,04

0,19

0,26

0,32

∆R2

 

0,15

0,05

0,06
Notes. a Gender: 1 = male; 0 = female; *p < 0,05; **p < 0,01; ***p < 0,001.
 
In testing Hypotheses 4 and 5, a preliminary model (Model 3) was first developed to test the direct effects of collectivist value orientation on the outcome variable. In the final step (Model 4), the interaction terms were added to test whether collectivist value orientation has moderating effects on the outcome. The results in Model 3 revealed a significant effect of collectivist value orientation on employees' affective job insecurity (β = 0,27; p < 0,001). In Model 4, the interaction effect of collectivist value orientation with coworker incivility was significant (β = 0,20; p < 0,01). However, collectivist value orientation did not moderate the effect of supervisor incivility (β = 0,05, not significant). Thus, Hypotheses 5 was not supported by our data.
A plot was used to examine the nature of the interaction effect between collectivist value orientation and coworker incivility. Figure 1 shows that the effect of coworker incivility was stronger for employees with high collectivist value orientation compared to those with low collectivist value orientation. Thus, our data supported Hypothesis 5.
 
Fig. 1. Interactions between collectivist value orientation and coworker incivility with affective job insecurity as the dependent variable
 

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

The current study delves into the nuanced effects of both coworker and supervisor incivility on employees' affective job insecurity, offering insights into the distinct contributions of each source of uncivil behavior. Moreover, by investigating the moderating influence of collectivist value orientation, this research expands our understanding of how cultural factors intersect with interpersonal dynamics in the workplace. These findings not only deepen theoretical understanding but also have practical implications for organizational leaders seeking to foster a more supportive and inclusive work environment.
Our research contributes to the workplace incivility literature in the following ways. First, the results indicated that coworker and supervisor incivility induce employee’s affective job insecurity. To our knowledge, Hershcovis et al.’s [Hershcovis, 2017] study stands as the sole investigation into the relationship between workplace incivility. However, the authors did not differentiate between the sources of uncivil behavior and focused primarily on cognitive job insecurity. Thus, our findings shed light on the significant impact of both coworker and supervisor incivility on employees' affective job insecurity, a dimension often overlooked in prior research.
Second, our findings revealed that supervisor incivility has a stronger effect on employee affective job insecurity compared to coworker incivility. This suggests that supervisor incivility is more detrimental than coworker incivility in terms of its impact on employee affective job insecurity. This finding aligns with a study by Cho et al. [Cho, 2016] which found that the effect of customer incivility on emotional exhaustion was strongest, followed by supervisor incivility, and finally coworker incivility. Our results are consistent with the dyadic relational perspective [Grandey, 2007; Matsumoto, 2008; Porath, 2012; Sliter, 2011] which suggests that the relative power between parties should be considered in social interactions. According to this perspective, the more power the instigator has, the greater their ability to impose disadvantages on the target, resulting in more adverse consequences. It is suggested that supervisors possess more power than coworkers due to their greater control over organizational resources or relationships [Grandey, 2010; Sliter, 2011].
Third, the results indicated that collectivist value orientation moderates the effect of coworker incivility on employee’s affective job insecurity. This finding represents a groundbreaking exploration into the interplay between cultural values and workplace incivility. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the interaction effect of collectivist value orientation and coworker incivility has been examined. Thus, our study expands the nomological network of coworker incivility by introducing collectivist value orientation as a potential moderator. This novel contribution underscores the importance of considering cultural factors in understanding and addressing workplace incivility.
Fourth, our study findings from Vietnam offer valuable insights into workplace incivility within a cultural context that has been underrepresented in prior research [Alias, 2022; Hoang Nguyen Tran, 2023]. Conducted in Vietnam, where cultural values such as collectivism and high power distance are prominent [Hofstede, 2010; Truong, 2016], our research enriches our understanding of workplace incivility in an Asian country. This adds to the understanding of workplace incivility which has primarily been studied in Western cultures characterized by individualism and low power distance.
Furthermore, our hypothesis regarding the moderating effect of collectivist value on the relationship between supervisor incivility and affective job insecurity was not supported. However, this should be interpreted cautiously because it could result from insufficient statistical power to identify moderation effects [Shieh, 2009] as the current sample size was relatively small. Therefore, it is incumbent upon future researchers to address this limitation by employing larger sample sizes to enhance the robustness and generalizability of findings. By ensuring adequate statistical power, subsequent investigations can more effectively elucidate the nuanced interplay between collectivist value orientation, supervisor incivility, and affective job insecurity. Moreover, employing diverse methodological approaches, such as longitudinal designs or experimental manipulations, can provide additional insights into these dynamic relationships.
 

Practical Implications

This study provides practical implications that can help organizations address workplace incivility. First, it underscores the importance of providing training and support for employees who may experience incivility in their interactions with colleagues and supervisors. Civility training for employees may be helpful because both positive and negative reciprocity between the two parties of the interaction depend on the quality of social relationships [Umar, 2024]. By equipping employees with the skills and resources to effectively manage workplace incivility, organizations can mitigate its negative impact on employee well-being and job performance [Naeem, 2024; Tomé Pires, 2025].
Second, our study suggests that HR practices aimed at addressing workplace incivility should take employees' collectivist value orientation into account. By aligning civility initiatives with employees' cultural norms and values, organizations can improve the efficacy of interventions and cultivate a positive organizational climate that fosters mutual respect and collaboration among employees [Yıkılmaz, 2021]. For instance, in workplaces where employees exhibit a strong collectivist orientation, promoting norms that emphasize harmonious social interactions becomes paramount for creating a positive work atmosphere [Rego, 2009]. Therefore, civility training initiatives in such settings should prioritize enhancing peer interactions. Conversely, in environments where employees demonstrate lower levels of collectivism, the focus of civility training may need to be adjusted to emphasize improving interactions with colleagues and supervisors [Leiter, 2012; Leiter, 2011].
Third, organizations should implement clear policies to address workplace incivility. Establishing well-defined behavioral expectations, along with consequences for violations, is essential to maintaining a respectful and productive work environment. A zero-tolerance policy toward incivility, coupled with a reporting mechanism that allows employees to safely report instances of disrespectful behavior, can significantly reduce the occurrence of incivility [Unim, 2023]. To encourage employees to use this reporting system, organizations must ensure confidentiality and create a straightforward, non-threatening process.
Finally, the study underscores the role of job insecurity as a significant outcome of workplace incivility, particularly when incivility stems from supervisors. To mitigate the uncertainty and anxiety caused by job insecurity, organizations should communicate clearly about job stability and potential career development opportunities [Riekhoff A.-J, 2021]. Moreover, it is essential for organizations to offer support systems, such as counseling services and employee assistance programs, to help employees cope with the emotional and psychological effects of job insecurity [Langlieb, 2021]. These measures can support employees in managing stress and improve their overall job satisfaction.
 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study advances our understanding of workplace incivility by examining its sources and cultural contexts. The findings show that both coworker and supervisor incivility significantly increase employees' affective job insecurity, with supervisor incivility having a more substantial impact. This supports the dyadic relational perspective, which emphasizes the influence of power dynamics in social interactions. Additionally, the study reveals that collectivist value orientation moderates the effect of coworker incivility on job insecurity, highlighting the role of cultural factors in shaping employees' responses to incivility. However, the moderating effect of collectivist values on the relationship between supervisor incivility and job insecurity was not supported, possibly due to sample size limitations. By focusing on Vietnamese organizations, this research addresses gaps in the literature and provides valuable insights into workplace incivility within a high power distance and collectivist cultural context. These findings underscore the need for culturally sensitive HR practices and interventions to mitigate the adverse effects of incivility and promote a supportive work environment. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics across diverse cultural settings.
 

Limitation

There are several limitations in this study that must be considered when evaluating the results. First, the use of self-reported data highlights issues of common-method bias [Podsakoff, 2003]. There are also two related concerns: (1) causality only can be speculated; and (2) because of relying on self-report, this study needs triangulation (i.e., using other methods of measurement) to reach greater confidence that internal validity is established [Schwab, 2013].
Second, our research focused solely on the influence of coworker and supervisor incivility on affective job insecurity, overlooking other potential sources of workplace incivility such as customer or client interactions. Future studies could explore the differential impacts of incivility from various sources on employee outcomes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of workplace dynamics. Furthermore, while our study examined the moderating effect of collectivist value orientation on the relationship between coworker incivility and affective job insecurity, we did not investigate other potential moderators. Future research could explore additional individual and contextual factors that may influence the impact of incivility on employee outcomes, such as personality traits, organizational climate, or cultural dimensions beyond collectivism. Finally, expanding the research to include diverse cultural settings beyond Vietnam could enhance the generalizability of the findings. Cross-cultural comparisons would help identify universal versus culture-specific aspects of workplace incivility and its effects, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive global understanding of the phenomenon.

References

  1. Al-Romeedy B.S., El-Sisi S. Does workplace incivility affect travel agency performance through innovation, organizational citizenship behaviors, and organizational commitment? Tourism Review, 2024. Vol. 79, no. 8, pp. 1474-1491. DOI: 10.1108/TR-06-2023-0389.
  2. Alias M., Ojo A.O., Ameruddin N.F.L. Workplace incivility: the impact on the Malaysian public service department. European Journal of Training and Development, 2022. Vol. 46, no. 3/4, pp. 356-372. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0031.
  3. Andersson L.M., Pearson C.M. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 1999. Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 452-471. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1999.2202131.
  4. Astakhova M.N. The Curvilinear Relationship between Work Passion and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. Vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 361-374. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2233-5.
  5. Chen Y.Y., et al. Self-love's lost labor: A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 2013. Vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1199-1219. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2010.0906.
  6. Cheng G.H.-L., Chan D.K.-S. Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity? A Meta-Analytic Review. Applied Psychology, 2008. Vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 272-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x.
  7. Cho M., et al. Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant frontline service employee emotions and service performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2016. Vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 2888-2912. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2015-0205.
  8. Cortina L.M., et al. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2001. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 64-80. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64.
  9. Cortina L.M., Hershcovis M.S., Clancy K.B.H. The Embodiment of Insult: A Theory of Biobehavioral Response to Workplace Incivility. Journal of Management, 2021. Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 738-763. DOI: 10.1177/0149206321989798.
  10. Cortina L.M., Hershcovis M.S., Clancy K.B.H. The Embodiment of Insult: A Theory of Biobehavioral Response to Workplace Incivility. Journal of Management, 2022. Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 738-763. DOI: 10.1177/0149206321989798.
  11. Daniels M.A., Greguras G.J. Exploring the Nature of Power Distance: Implications for Micro- and Macro-Level Theories, Processes, and Outcomes. Journal of Management, 2014. Vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1202-1229. DOI: 10.1177/0149206314527131.
  12. Davy J.A., Kinicki A.J.,. Scheck C.L. A Test of Job Security's Direct and Mediated Effects on Withdrawal Cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1997. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 323-349.
  13. De Clercq D., Haq I.U., Azeem M.U. Why happy employees help: How meaningfulness, collectivism, and support transform job satisfaction into helping behaviours. Personnel Review, 2019. Vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1001-1021. DOI: 10.1108/PR-02-2018-0052.
  14. Durmuş A., et al. The effect of nurses' perceived workplace incivility on their presenteeism and turnover intention: The mediating role of work stress and psychological resilience. International Nursing Review, 2024. Vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 960-968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12950.
  15. Dyne L.V., et al. Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2000. Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 3-23. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<3::AID-JOB47>3.0.CO;2-6.
  16. Grandey A.A., Kern J.H., Frone M.R. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2007. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 63-79. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.63.
  17. Grandey A.A., et al. Emotion display rules at work in the global service economy: the special case of the customer. Journal of Service Management, 2010. Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 388-412. DOI: 10.1108/09564231011050805.
  18. Greenhalgh L., Rosenblatt Z. Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity. The Academy of Management Review, 1984. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 438-448. DOI: 10.2307/258284.
  19. Guo J., et al. Individualism and Collectivism as Predictors of Creative Potentials and Real-Life Creativity in China and US. Creativity Research Journal, 2025. Vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 120-131. DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2023.2217028.
  20. Guo J., Qiu Y., Gan Y. Workplace incivility and work engagement: The mediating role of job insecurity and the moderating role of self-perceived employability. Managerial and Decision Economics, 2022. Vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 192-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3377.
  21. Han S., et al. A meta-analysis integrating 20 years of workplace incivility research: Antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2022. Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 497-523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2568.
  22. He Y.M., et al. Explaining the negative impact of workplace incivility on work and non-work outcomes: The roles of negative rumination and organizational support. Stress and Health, 2021. Vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 297-309. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2988.
  23. Hershcovis M.S., Barling J. Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 24-44. DOI: 10.1002/job.621.
  24. Hershcovis M.S., et al. Targeted workplace incivility: The roles of belongingness, embarrassment, and power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2017. Vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1057-1075. DOI: 10.1002/job.2183.
  25. Hoang Nguyen Tran Q. Workplace Incivility and Its Demographic Characteristics: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Chinese and Vietnamese Working Adults. SAGE Open, 2023. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 21582440231184858. DOI: 10.1177/21582440231184858.
  26. Hofstede G. Culture and Organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 1980. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 15-41. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300.
  27. Hofstede G. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 1980. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 42-63. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3.
  28. Hofstede G., Hofstede G.J., Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. 3 ed. 2010, New York ; London: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Huang G.-H., et al. Affective Job Insecurity: A Mediator of Cognitive Job Insecurity and Employee Outcomes Relationships. International Studies of Management & Organization, 2010. Vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 20-39.
  30. Islam Z.U., et al. How and when perceived job search incivility leads to reduced job search behavior. Personnel Review, 2023. Vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1273-1290. DOI: 10.1108/PR-07-2019-0401.
  31. Jaw B.S., et al. The impact of culture on Chinese employees' work values. Personnel Review, 2007. Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 128-144. DOI: 10.1108/00483480710716759.
  32. Jorgensen F., et al. Kick me while I’m down: Modeling employee differences of the impact of workplace incivility on employees' health and wellbeing. Human Resource Management Review, 2024. Vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 100999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100999.
  33. Kavaklı B.D., Yildirim N. The relationship between workplace incivility and turnover intention in nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Management, 2022. Vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1235-1242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13594.
  34. Kirkman B.L., Lowe K.B., Gibson C.B. A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 2006. Vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 285-320. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202.
  35. Kivimaki M., et al. Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees - The Whitehall II Study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2005. Vol. 165, no. 19, pp. 2245-2251. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.19.2245.
  36. Lam S.S.K., Schaubroeck J., Aryee S. Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: a cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1002/job.131.
  37. Langlieb A.M., Langlieb M.E., Xiong W. EAP 2.0: reimagining the role of the employee assistance program in the new workplace. International Review of Psychiatry, 2021. Vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 699-710. DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2021.2013172.
  38. Leiter M.P., et al. Getting better and staying better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2012. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 425-434. DOI: 10.1037/a0029540.
  39. Leiter M.P., et al. The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011. Vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1258-1274. DOI: 10.1037/a0024442.
  40. Lin Y., Zhang Y.C., Oyserman D. Seeing meaning even when none may exist: Collectivism increases belief in empty claims. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2022. Vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 351-366. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000280.
  41. Liu P., An X., Li X. You are an outsider! How and when observed leader incivility affect hospitality employees’ social categorization and deviant behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2022. Vol. 106, no. pp. 103273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103273.
  42. Matsumoto D., et al. Mapping expressive differences around the world - The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2008. Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55-74. DOI: 10.1177/0022022107311854.
  43. Miner-Rubino K., Reed W.D. Testing a Moderated Mediational Model of Workgroup Incivility The Roles of Organizational Trust and Group Regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010. Vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3148-3168. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x.
  44. Moorman R.H., Blakely G.L. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1995. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 127-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160204.
  45. Mulki J.P., et al. Regulation of emotions, interpersonal conflict, and job performance for salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 2015. Vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 623-630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.009.
  46. Naeem R.M., et al. Supervisor incivility and counterproductive work behavior: the role of job and personal resources. Personnel Review, 2024. Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 857-876. DOI: 10.1108/PR-09-2022-0603.
  47. Naranjo A., et al. When minor insecurities project large shadows: A profile analysis of cognitive and affective job insecurity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 421-436. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000294.
  48. Owuamalam C.K., et al. Cultural group norms for harmony explain the puzzling negative association between objective status and system justification in Asia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2023. Vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 245-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2901.
  49. Parray Z.A., Islam S.U., Shah T.A. Exploring the effect of workplace incivility on job outcomes: testing the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2023. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 161-179. DOI: 10.1108/JOEPP-07-2022-0178.
  50. Patterson P.G., Cowley E., Prasongsukarn K. Service failure recovery: The moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2006. Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 263-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.02.004.
  51. Pearson C.M., Andersson L.M., Porath C.L. Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 2000. Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 123-137. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X.
  52. Podsakoff P.M., et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. Vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879-903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
  53. Porath C.L., Overbeck J.R., Pearson C.M. Picking Up the Gauntlet: How Individuals Respond to Status Challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2008. Vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1945-1980. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00375.x.
  54. Porath C.L., Pearson C.M. Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Workplace Incivility and the Impact of Hierarchical Status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012. Vol. 42, no. S1, pp. E326-E357. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x.
  55. Qin X., et al. Collectivism Impairs Team Performance When Relational Goals Conflict With Group Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2022. Vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 119-132. DOI: 10.1177/01461672221123776.
  56. Rego A., Cunha M.P. How individualism–collectivism orientations predict happiness in a collectivistic context. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2009. Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 19-35. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-007-9059-0.
  57. Riekhoff A.-J., Ojala S., Pyöriä P. Career stability in turbulent times: A cross-cohort study of mid-careers in Finland. Acta Sociologica, 2021. Vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 437-458. DOI: 10.1177/0001699320983422.
  58. Rodwell D., Frith H. ‘A ward full of emotional, aggressive people’: Social climate and interpersonal relationships in forensic settings caring for patients with borderline personality disorder. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 2024. Vol. n/a, no. n/a, pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13308.
  59. Schilpzand P., de Pater I.E., Erez A. Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2016. Vol. 37, no. pp. S57-S88. DOI: 10.1002/job.1976.
  60. Schwab D.P. Research methods for organizational studies. 2013, New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  61. Shieh G. Detecting Interaction Effects in Moderated Multiple Regression With Continuous Variables Power and Sample Size Considerations. Organizational Research Methods, 2009. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 510-528. DOI: 10.1177/1094428108320370.
  62. Sliter M., et al. The differential effects of interpersonal conflict from customers and coworkers: Trait anger as a moderator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2011. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 424-440. DOI: 10.1037/a0023874.
  63. Son S., Yang T.S., Park J. How organizational politics and subjective social status moderate job insecurity–silence relationships. Journal of Management & Organization, 2022. Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 266-286. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2022.54.
  64. Strydom D.B. Ethical leadership and performance: The effect of follower individualism-collectivism. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2021. Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 261-283. DOI: 10.1177/14705958211013395.
  65. Tano A.Y., et al. Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour: The moderator effects of subordinates’ horizontal collectivism orientation and team-member exchange. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2023. Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 507-530. DOI: 10.1177/14705958231212050.
  66. Taylor S.G., Bedeian A.G., Kluemper D.H. Linking workplace incivility to citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. Vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 878-893. DOI: 10.1002/job.773.
  67. Tomé Pires C., et al. Relationship between structural empowerment and work engagement in the health-care sector in Portugal: the mediating role of civility. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 2025. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 90-111. DOI: 10.1108/MRJIAM-05-2023-1421.
  68. Truong T.D., Hallinger P., Sanga K. Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 2016. Vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 77-100. DOI: 10.1177/1741143215607877.
  69. Umar M., Fatima H., Shah S.A.A. Enhancing customer civility: Integrating civility climate behaviors and self-service technology. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2024. Vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 14673584241299738. DOI: 10.1177/14673584241299738.
  70. Unim B., et al. Translation and validation of the Italian version of the incivility in nursing education-revised scale. Applied Nursing Research, 2023. Vol. 73, no. pp. 151728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2023.151728.
  71. van Vuuren C.V., Klandermans P.G. Individual reactions to job insecurity: An integrated model, in European perspectives in psychology. Vol. 3. Work and organizational, social and economic, cross-cultural. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1990, pp. 133-146.
  72. Ye Z., Liu H., Gu J. Relationships between conflicts and employee perceived job performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2019. Vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 706-728. DOI: 10.1108/IJCMA-01-2019-0010.
  73. Yıkılmaz İ., Sürücü L. Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between authentic leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Management & Organization, 2021. Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 159-172. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2021.23.
  74. Zhan X., Li Z., Luo W. An identification-based model of workplace incivility and employee creativity: evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 2019. Vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 528-552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12204.
  75. Zhao L., Lee J., Moon S. Employee response to CSR in China: the moderating effect of collectivism. Personnel Review, 2019. Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 839-863. DOI: 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0146.

 

Information About the Authors

The-Ngan Ma, PhD in Business Administration, Lecturer, Department of Technology Management, VNU University of Economics and Business, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6378-3757, e-mail: nganmt@vnu.edu.vn

Hong V. Vu, PhD in Business Administration, Lecturer, Department of Fundamental Management, University of Finance-Marketing, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6376-7143, e-mail: vhvan@ufm.edu.vn

Thi H. Dao, PhD in Business Administration, Lecturer, Department of Human Resource Management, VNU University of Economics and Business, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-6152, e-mail: daohaanh@vnu.edu.vn

The K. Nguyen, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, Department of Statistics and Economic Research Methods, VNU University of Economics and Business, Ha Noi, Viet Nam, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9404-5239, e-mail: nguyenthekien@vnu.edu.vn

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 79
Previous month: 6
Current month: 73

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 26
Previous month: 0
Current month: 26

 Total

Whole time: 105
Previous month: 6
Current month: 99